PDA

View Full Version : Intel Demos 45nm Penryn Processors, Due by end of 2007




MacRumors
Jan 28, 2007, 09:37 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

NY Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/technology/27chip.html?_r=2&ei=5124&en=bd3026c0d3ed1704&ex=157680000&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1169914495-/KZkuyA+I9olU5cqwGGvwQ&oref=slogin) on an advance from Intel which is said to represent "the most significant change in the materials used to manufacture silicon chips since Intel pioneered the modern integrated-circuit transistor more than four decades ago."

Intel is moving towards the 45nm manufacturing process and demoed (CNet) (http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6153973.html) 45-nm Penryn chips during a press briefing. The Penryn chips are said to be available "before the end of the year."
Penryn is essentially a shrink of the Core 2 Duo chips, with a few extras like the SSE4 instructions. It's being introduced along with the new manufacturing technology, the "tick" of Intel's plans. Then next year, when the 45-nanometer manufacturing technology is mature, Intel will introduce a new chip microarchitecture code-named Nehalem--the "tock"--with more significant changes to the chip design.The advances in the manufacturing process include the use of new insulators and new metallic alloy materials in transistor components. Current Intel chips utilize a 65-nm manufacturing process. As always, the move to the smaller processes tends to improve performance and decrease power consumption.

According to this article (http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/01/27/intel/index.php), the Penryn family of chips will deliver new laptop dual-core microprocessor, a desktop dual-core and a quad-core, and server dual and quad-core processors.

Apple will, of course, benefit from these new processors when they are released, and Intel has stated that the current prototypes are already booting Mac OS X -- indicating that Apple is already involved in early testing.

More technical details: TGDaily (http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/27/intel_45nm_penryn_details/) and AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2915)



DMann
Jan 28, 2007, 09:39 PM
Now we're talking - power and true power saving!

oceanmonster
Jan 28, 2007, 09:42 PM
I'd bet that Apple will debut these processors in their next generation Laptops and Desktops.

Abstract
Jan 28, 2007, 09:42 PM
I don't care about the power savings because I don't think it's significant, but faster is better.

breakfastcrew
Jan 28, 2007, 09:43 PM
12 hr battery life on a macbook would be nice.

Grimace
Jan 28, 2007, 09:45 PM
let the "should I wait for Penryn chips?" threads begin!! :rolleyes:

Chundles
Jan 28, 2007, 09:52 PM
Man, this whole "wait till '08" philosophy of mine is really paying off. I'll get a second revision Penryn/Santa Rosa MacBook with all the goodies.

Gonna destrrooooyyyy my iBook's performance in one fell swoop. Amazing just how good the progress from Intel is - remember the good ol' days of "OMG, 100MHz faster G4s coming soon" rumours.

Now we know what's coming and roughly when and we know the benefits of the new chips are going to make them worth the upgrade price. Even going from a 1.2GHz G4 to a 1.67GHz G4 isn't all that much but going from a 1.2GHz G4 to a 2+ GHz Penryn-based Core 2 Duo for basically the same price as I paid for this iBook is simply amazing.

tvguru
Jan 28, 2007, 09:55 PM
let the "should I wait for Penryn chips?" threads begin!! :rolleyes:

Well, should I? :D :p

samh004
Jan 28, 2007, 09:58 PM
Intel has stated that the current prototypes are already booting Mac OS X -- indicating that Apple is already involved in early testing.

Why does that mean Apple is already testing, couldn't it just mean that the architecture isn't radically different so it works on existing versions of OS X. It could just be Intel running OS X.

12 hr battery life on a macbook would be nice.

Yes... that's going to happen :p

let the "should I wait for Penryn chips?" threads begin!! :rolleyes:

I'm never sure what I should be doing. On the one hand I'd love an intel-mac now, or the next revision, or the revision after that with all those other new rumored goodies; on the other hand my PB is working fine for what I do, it's not stressed and there really isn't a reason to upgrade.

I've been saying I'm going to upgrade for 2 years. Another year couldn't hurt, right ?

ibook30
Jan 28, 2007, 10:07 PM
Man, this whole "wait till '08" philosophy of mine is really paying off. I'll get a second revision Penryn/Santa Rosa MacBook with all the goodies.



I hope the same!
It seems a bit heavey handed to herald this as the most significant advancement in four decades, can anyone explain how important 45 nm design will be?

Edit : Answer :

For several decades there have been repeated warnings about the impending end of the Moore’s Law pace for chip makers. In response the semiconductor industry has repeatedly found its way around fundamental technical obstacles, inventing techniques that at times seem to defy basic laws of physics.

Chundles
Jan 28, 2007, 10:09 PM
I hope the same!
It seems a bit heavey handed to herald this as the most significant advancement in four decades, can anyone explain how important 45 nm design will be?

I'm not sure it's the physical 45nm design but the new materials they're using in creating the chips. The way they've manufactured the stuff could mean advances once thought impossible will now come easily.

DTphonehome
Jan 28, 2007, 10:11 PM
I hope the same!
It seems a bit heavey handed to herald this as the most significant advancement in four decades, can anyone explain how important 45 nm design will be?

The main reason it's such a big breakthrough is that the materials used as insulators have been basically unchanged in 40 years. That's why there was a theoretical limit to the speed you could squeeze out of a chip by reducing the size of the transistors. With this breakthrough, a totally new type of insulator has been developed which can allow far smaller processes (45nm and beyond), which were unfeasable with the previous type of insulator.

MauiMac
Jan 28, 2007, 10:12 PM
Which system will most likely use this chip?

Chundles
Jan 28, 2007, 10:16 PM
Which system will most likely use this chip?

All of them eventually.

The MacBook/MacBook Pro and most likely the iMac and Mac mini will use the mobile (Penryn) versions of this chip, the Mac Pro will likely use the quad core server versions of the processor.

Although, with the cooler construction it's possible the iMac may get the desktop dual core version to separate it more from the mini.

mahonmeister
Jan 28, 2007, 10:17 PM
I hope Apple adopts them as soon as they come out late this year. The delay of the C2D was really ridiculous.

All of them eventually.

The MacBook/MacBook Pro and most likely the iMac and Mac mini will use the mobile (Penryn) versions of this chip, the Mac Pro will likely use the quad core server versions of the processor.

Although, with the cooler construction it's possible the iMac may get the desktop dual core version to separate it more from the mini.

Desktop processor in an iMac would be sweet. That's one of the reasons I'm not interested in the iMac lineup right now. You could get so much more power at a cheaper price with a desktop processor.

twoodcc
Jan 28, 2007, 10:21 PM
I'd bet that Apple will debut these processors in their next generation Laptops and Desktops.

now that's a safe bet ;)

obeygiant
Jan 28, 2007, 10:27 PM
smaller, faster, smaller, faster. This is great and exciting news, but isn't this trend supposed to be leveling off? I cant wait to see a mac ten years out.

MacNut
Jan 28, 2007, 10:31 PM
It would be nice if they can improve battery life in the laptops with these new chips.

phillipjfry
Jan 28, 2007, 10:31 PM
Which system will most likely use this chip?

My system, if I time my purchases just right :)

whatever
Jan 28, 2007, 10:37 PM
So does that mean that Apple will be releasing a G5 Powerbook Upgrade, sporting these new Intel CPUs, next Tuesday and only charge us a $1.99 upgrade fee!

God I hope they also ship these as a mini-Tower, because you know without a mini-Tower enclosure, Apple as nothing!

LOL

jamdr
Jan 28, 2007, 10:40 PM
Does anyone know if there is an updated chip Apple could use in their laptops before the end of the year? Are we going to have to wait a whole year before updated laptops are available?

MacNut
Jan 28, 2007, 10:41 PM
Does anyone know if there is an updated chip Apple could use in their laptops before the end of the year? Are we going to have to wait a whole year before updated laptops are available?Im sure they will see a speed bump just not the 45nm chips.

Chundles
Jan 28, 2007, 10:44 PM
Does anyone know if there is an updated chip Apple could use in their laptops before the end of the year? Are we going to have to wait a whole year before updated laptops are available?

My money's on an updated MacBook/MacBook Pro/iMac in April with the Santa Rosa platform (no new processors but loads of improved other stuff), the Mac minis will get Napa-based Core 2 Duos around then and Leopard will be released with an all-64bit Mac lineup.

Then at the end of the year we'll see Penryn-based processors go into the Macs one at a time.

sluthy
Jan 28, 2007, 10:46 PM
Does anyone know if there is an updated chip Apple could use in their laptops before the end of the year? Are we going to have to wait a whole year before updated laptops are available?

Hmm...buy current MBP, buy current competing ASUS or Dell laptop, wait until LED screens debut (April apparently), or wait until Christmas for Perryn? Or wait until solid state HDDs are feasible? Or wait until next decade for holographic storage? :D

hokullani
Jan 28, 2007, 11:01 PM
Are these chips smaller in size than the Core 2 Duo, because if they are then this sounds like a perfect chip for the ultra portable mac, less power consumption and small size would fit perfectly in the ultraportable.

DTphonehome
Jan 28, 2007, 11:10 PM
Hmm...buy current MBP, buy current competing ASUS or Dell laptop, wait until LED screens debut (April apparently), or wait until Christmas for Perryn? Or wait until solid state HDDs are feasible? Or wait until next decade for holographic storage? :D

Penryn and SSD is still a while away, IMO. If I were buying now, I would wait for LED screens, preloaded Leopard and iLife 07. When they add the LED screens, I'll bet you'll see a RAM bump, HD bump, graphics card bump, screen rez bump (for Leopard), and a SuperDrive bump. IMHO, of course.

Epicurus
Jan 28, 2007, 11:26 PM
My money's on an updated MacBook/MacBook Pro/iMac in April with the Santa Rosa platform (no new processors but loads of improved other stuff), the Mac minis will get Napa-based Core 2 Duos around then and Leopard will be released with an all-64bit Mac lineup.

Now that might be a worthwhile reason for a delay in Leopard's release. While a slow and difficult development may be the real reason for a few extra months of testing, if Apple can roll out a new fleet of 64-bit, 802.11n packing Macs, and push out their new OS just in time for the massive iPhone marketing push...

Things might be riding pretty high by the time WWDC rolls around.

dontmatter
Jan 28, 2007, 11:26 PM
hafnium? How much of that is there on earth/how easy is it to mine? I hope the mining of it isn't a major environmental nightmare like so many metals. I wonder if this will change the market for hafnium seriously.

other than that, yay 45 nm!

Episteme
Jan 28, 2007, 11:29 PM
Now that might be a worthwhile reason for a delay in Leopard's release. While a slow and difficult development may be the real reason for a few extra months of testing, if Apple can roll out a new fleet of 64-bit, 802.11n packing Macs, and push out their new OS just in time for the massive iPhone marketing push...

Things might be riding pretty high by the time WWDC rolls around.

Most of the current machines are already 64bit/802.11n in hardware -- they just need the software :)

Chundles
Jan 28, 2007, 11:29 PM
Now that might be a worthwhile reason for a delay in Leopard's release. While a slow and difficult development may be the real reason for a few extra months of testing, if Apple can roll out a new fleet of 64-bit, 802.11n packing Macs, and push out their new OS just in time for the massive iPhone marketing push...

Things might be riding pretty high by the time WWDC rolls around.

What delay in Leopard's release? No shipping date has been announced and Apple have only committed to "Spring (autumn for me) 2007" which goes till June.

Have you heard something?

dontmatter
Jan 28, 2007, 11:30 PM
Penryn and SSD is still a while away, IMO. If I were buying now, I would wait for LED screens, preloaded Leopard and iLife 07. When they add the LED screens, I'll bet you'll see a RAM bump, HD bump, graphics card bump, screen rez bump (for Leopard), and a SuperDrive bump. IMHO, of course.

Sounds a little optimistic to me, LED screens should cost a fair bit more. But I agree, wait till leopard is out to buy. The bumps are rarely worth waiting for, though LED would be a big bump (yay low power) that would make sense- but that also means that you don't know that your wait will be fruitful.

gauchogolfer
Jan 28, 2007, 11:38 PM
hafnium? How much of that is there on earth/how easy is it to mine? I hope the mining of it isn't a major environmental nightmare like so many metals. I wonder if this will change the market for hafnium seriously.

other than that, yay 45 nm!

Well, hafnium is used in nuclear reactor control rods, so I think there will at least be competition for it. As to how much exists in the crust, it's about as common as uranium or tin (about 5 ppm). It's not easy to produce, since it's always bound with zirconium in nature, and requires a cascaded fractional crystallization process to purify.

roland.g
Jan 28, 2007, 11:40 PM
I wouldn't call it waiting for Penryn, but if we could see Apple's lineup featuring these chips by either year end or MWSF 08, instead of buying a 24" iMac when Leopard gets released and keeping that 3 years, I may get a used 20" Core Duo or a refurb and use that for a year or less.

nsjoker
Jan 28, 2007, 11:49 PM
... and yet macbooks will still run warm/hot and have the fans spinning 24/7. :cool:

danvdr
Jan 28, 2007, 11:56 PM
I'm glad to see that the 45nm are coming sooner rather than later, but I'm not sure why it's getting all the press time. Didn't we know at least severa (http://news.com.com/Intel+completes+design+of+Penryn+chip/2100-1006_3-6139487.html)l months ago that 45 nm processors were coming?

koobcamuk
Jan 29, 2007, 12:03 AM
I don't care about the power savings because I don't think it's significant, but faster is better.

I know there's a population difference, but the US wastes more power through in efficiency than Japan uses to power everything. Maybe more efficient or power saving chips could help stop the world going completely balls up.

Rivix
Jan 29, 2007, 12:05 AM
Ahh... the waiting game never ends...

"i'll wait for ______ then i will get a Mac." then
"actually, i'll wait for ______ then i will get a Mac." and so on...

Eidorian
Jan 29, 2007, 12:07 AM
Quad core mobile in 2008? :rolleyes:

puuukeey
Jan 29, 2007, 12:21 AM
.....since it's always bound with zirconium in nature, and requires a cascaded fractional crystallization process to purify.

That was the best thing I've ever read on mac rumors. not only does it "sound" like butter as I'm reading it dripping off a hot bisquit, the guy probably knows what hes talking about....

I hearby present the Egon-Jaw-Dropping-Jargon-Award to: gauchogolfer

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/d8f/db6/d8fdb623-c3ef-41ea-ab42-cb6105a1b0bf

Mr. Amiga500
Jan 29, 2007, 12:24 AM
I've been saying I'm going to upgrade for 2 years. Another year couldn't hurt, right ?

I've been saying it for 20 years. I'm posting this with a 1987 Amiga 500. (seriously!)

Oh, man. Now I have to wait until 2008.

psingh01
Jan 29, 2007, 12:39 AM
At Apple's rate they will announce these in summer '08 to ship in fall :rolleyes:

Kelmon
Jan 29, 2007, 12:53 AM
Does anyone know if there is an updated chip Apple could use in their laptops before the end of the year? Are we going to have to wait a whole year before updated laptops are available?

Seems reasonable but given the Core 2 Duo delays last year for the MacBook Pro I wouldn't bet on seeing these processors in a Mac until just before the holiday season and that's assuming that Intel's launch projections are correct.

gauchogolfer
Jan 29, 2007, 12:56 AM
That was the best thing I've ever read on mac rumors. not only does it "sound" like butter as I'm reading it dripping off a hot bisquit, the guy probably knows what hes talking about....

I hearby present the Egon-Jaw-Dropping-Jargon-Award to: gauchogolfer

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/d8f/db6/d8fdb623-c3ef-41ea-ab42-cb6105a1b0bf

Thanks for the applause. :cool:

erockerboy
Jan 29, 2007, 02:36 AM
Mmmm..... Penryn!

This is hot stuff. That TGDaily article cited at the top of the thread painted a pretty exciting picture. I didn't know that current Conroe's were already running at speeds up to 4GHz in Intel's labs (!!!)... and to think that Penryn will only be faster (and more power efficient) than Conroe - combined with fuel cell technology, solid state storage and LED screens, I bet we will see some smokin' portables on the market in the near future.... lighter, faster, with longer battery life and that sexy 'new computer smell' that can only come from Penryn.

I love the smell of hafnium in the morning :D

ezekielrage_99
Jan 29, 2007, 03:17 AM
Intel has really been pushing CPU and chipset releases more than ever, I wonder if they are trying to get a jump on AMD :confused:

RedTomato
Jan 29, 2007, 03:29 AM
From the Anand article:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2915&p=3

(Photo of chip engineers toasting each other.)

If you're concerned, that's sparkling cider in those glasses and not champagne; alcohol is not allowed on Intel's campus

Eh? Most places cider is defintely a highly alcoholic drink. I'm from Cornwall in the UK and our cider gets you blind drunk in about 45 seconds. No wonder the intel team look so pleased in the photo - they've definitely pulled a fast one on the management!

dernhelm
Jan 29, 2007, 05:07 AM
Are these chips smaller in size than the Core 2 Duo, because if they are then this sounds like a perfect chip for the ultra portable mac, less power consumption and small size would fit perfectly in the ultraportable.

It's not the size of the chip, it's how you use it...
:D

iW00t
Jan 29, 2007, 05:37 AM
12 hr battery life on a macbook would be nice.

Not with any real help from the processor.

It is not like the huge LCD display is using less power than the rest of the components in the laptop. That's probably why you see your remaining battery life increase dramatically as you turn your screen brightness down.

Kuska
Jan 29, 2007, 07:10 AM
My money's on an updated MacBook/MacBook Pro/iMac in April with the Santa Rosa platform (no new processors but loads of improved other stuff), the Mac minis will get Napa-based Core 2 Duos around then and Leopard will be released with an all-64bit Mac lineup.

Then at the end of the year we'll see Penryn-based processors go into the Macs one at a time.

I'm looking to upgrade - what is the 'improved other stuff' you mentioned likely to be ?

mothergoose45
Jan 29, 2007, 07:31 AM
Well, I don't Have to have a new 24" Imac right now, I just want one. My old Dell is still Kickin. Was going to wait until Leopard, but I'm not so sure now. With a smaller chip and less heat the Imac just might get a Desktop Processor, and with less heat with the Penryn it might just lose it's chin somewhat. Hopefully by then HD-dvd - Blueray might have a clear winner. It would be nice to have a HD burner in there. My Apple Gift Card for an Imac will just have to stay in the safe for a little bit longer.:)

Multimedia
Jan 29, 2007, 08:07 AM
While I look forward to this series of processors inside a future Mac Pro, this news won't keep me from buying the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as soon as it ships this Spring with Leopard.

roland.g
Jan 29, 2007, 08:18 AM
With a smaller chip and less heat the Imac just might get a Desktop Processor, and with less heat with the Penryn it might just lose it's chin somewhat.

The chin isn't due to the CPU, it is due to the power supply which won't fit behind the screen. At least to my understanding and the pics I've seen of the inside of a 24" iMac.

ready2switch
Jan 29, 2007, 08:46 AM
My money's on an updated MacBook/MacBook Pro/iMac in April with the Santa Rosa platform (no new processors but loads of improved other stuff), the Mac minis will get Napa-based Core 2 Duos around then and Leopard will be released with an all-64bit Mac lineup.

Then at the end of the year we'll see Penryn-based processors go into the Macs one at a time.

My hopes exactly. :D

Swarmlord
Jan 29, 2007, 08:51 AM
12 hr battery life on a macbook would be nice.

That's what I want from a laptop also. Even my G4 word processes, web browses and even plays WoW fast enough for me when I'm on the road or just hanging out at a coffee shop, but it would be nice never to have to worry about plugging it in after only an hour or two. There's no power saver mode that's going to make my laptop run longer than that playing WoW.

ready2switch
Jan 29, 2007, 08:55 AM
From the Anand article:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2915&p=3

(Photo of chip engineers toasting each other.)



Eh? Most places cider is defintely a highly alcoholic drink. I'm from Cornwall in the UK and our cider gets you blind drunk in about 45 seconds. No wonder the intel team look so pleased in the photo - they've definitely pulled a fast one on the management!

Sparkling cider in the US is basically apple juice with bubbles. ;)

thejadedmonkey
Jan 29, 2007, 09:04 AM
Sparkling cider in the US is basically apple juice with bubbles. ;)

Sparkling Cider doesn't even have to be alcoholic in the US...

mothergoose45
Jan 29, 2007, 09:09 AM
The chin isn't due to the CPU, it is due to the power supply which won't fit behind the screen. At least to my understanding and the pics I've seen of the inside of a 24" iMac.

That makes sense. Good thing they didnt have to cram my Xbox 360 power supply in there! That would be a Jay Leno Imac.:)

brianus
Jan 29, 2007, 09:35 AM
Quad core mobile in 2008? :rolleyes:

This is what I'm wondering; will there be any increase in cores with Penryn, or will we have to wait till 2008/09 and Core 3 before that happens?

ready2switch
Jan 29, 2007, 09:35 AM
I'm looking to upgrade - what is the 'improved other stuff' you mentioned likely to be ?

New stuff:

Santa Rosa platform (2007)

The code-name Santa Rosa refers to the fourth-generation Centrino platform, scheduled for release in April 2007 with the following features:[1]

* second generation Intel Core 2 processor (code named Merom) that uses Socket P
* 800 MT/s front side bus with Dynamic Front Side Bus Switching to save power during low utilization
* Intel Mobile 965 Express chipset (code named Crestline) with Intel's GMA X3000 graphics technology
* Intel PRO/Wireless 4965AGN IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n mini-PCIe Wi-Fi adapter (code named Kedron)
* NAND flash-memory caching (code-named Robson)
* WWAN Internet access via HSDPA codeveloped with Nokia (code-named Windigo) [1][2]
* EFI, a successor to BIOS
* Intel Dynamic Acceleration (IDA), better Windows Vista Aero support [3]

Support for WiMAX (802.16) was originally scheduled for inclusion in Santa Rosa but has now been dropped and will come in 2008 as part of Montevina [4].

The Santa Rosa platform will be branded as "Centrino Pro".[5]

lukeisme09
Jan 29, 2007, 09:41 AM
all i no is that i am running a Compaq v2000 with windows xp, and apple better hurry up and release leapord before i throw this POS out the window.:apple:

Eidorian
Jan 29, 2007, 09:52 AM
This is what I'm wondering; will there be any increase in cores with Penryn, or will we have to wait till 2008/09 and Core 3 before that happens?I still have my doubts though. I believe we'll be much more lucky to see a desktop quad core with a more manageable TDP (65-80 watts).

Romanesq
Jan 29, 2007, 10:18 AM
Then at the end of the year we'll see Penryn-based processors go into the Macs one at a time.

End of year may be too optimistic based on manufacturing availability. So let's say first quarter but in which order will the machines get the new chips?

I'm wondering how they will roll'em out.

devman
Jan 29, 2007, 10:22 AM
It's not the size of the chip, it's how you use it...
:D

Only people with a small chip say that... ;)

digitalbiker
Jan 29, 2007, 10:51 AM
While I look forward to this series of processors inside a future Mac Pro, this news won't keep me from buying the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as soon as it ships this Spring with Leopard.

It's not going to stop me either MM but I sure wish Apple would hurry up and release the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro. If Apple delays the release until Summer, and the 45nm is looking like it is on target for MW2008.

It is going to make the Clovertown purchase less attractive.

iMikeT
Jan 29, 2007, 11:07 AM
The waiting game that I'm playing with getting a new Mac is killing me!:eek:

I told myself that I would be waiting until 10.5 was released to get a new Mac. However, with release of this news, I might now have to wait until 2008???:mad:

I really need a new computer now because my workflow is extremely slow on my aging (actually, only going on its second year) Mac.

This is one reason why I hate technology. The moment you get something new, it's old.

EagerDragon
Jan 29, 2007, 11:10 AM
Ok, so it leaks less and uses less power. What does this means to me when it comes to doing my work faster?
:)

dernhelm
Jan 29, 2007, 11:11 AM
Anyone know anything about what SSE4 brings to the table? Is it something that Apple would be looking for to speed up Core Image or Core Audio?

Other than that, this sounds like a simple drop-in, and by early 2008 we should see these in some systems.

EagerDragon
Jan 29, 2007, 11:13 AM
let the "should I wait for Penryn chips?" threads begin!! :rolleyes:

I have no choice, I am broke, so I guess I'll wait.

devman
Jan 29, 2007, 11:17 AM
The waiting game that I'm playing with getting a new Mac is killing me!:eek:

I told myself that I would be waiting until 10.5 was released to get a new Mac. However, with release of this news, I might now have to wait until 2008???:mad:

and in 2008 news of the next greatest chip will be discussed.

I really need a new computer now because my workflow is extremely slow on my aging (actually, only going on its second year) Mac.

This is one reason why I hate technology. The moment you get something new, it's old.

Precisely! So get over it. Buy when you need.

Tadros86
Jan 29, 2007, 11:28 AM
I've wanted a Mac since the intel chips were introduced. And I just saved up enough for the Macbook pro that I've wanted, but after hearing all the recent news of LCDs, speed bump, flash booting, longer battery life, Leopard, iLife 07' and Logic 8 I decided to wait. But now this is making me think about waiting till 08' which is crazy cause we are still in January 07! That's a whole year! Even if we all waited until 08' for the new chips we'll be hearing about greater technology and speed bumps and upgrades. It never ends. . . not even for a couple months.:mad:

danielwsmithee
Jan 29, 2007, 11:37 AM
I don't care about the power savings because I don't think it's significant, but faster is better.Then you don't understand electronics very well. Less power means longer run times, smaller package, less heat, smaller machines (thinner macbook). It also means you can fit more cores or logic in a single die i.e. faster.

killmoms
Jan 29, 2007, 11:47 AM
I love seeing people realize that technology always changes for the first time. Have these people not been alive for the last 10 years? What is WRONG with you all? Especially iMikeT. Come ON, MAN!

Look, technology will ALWAYS GET BETTER. That's just the WAY IT IS. If you sit here and wait for the Next Big Thing™, you will never buy anything, because there is ALWAYS something new around the corner. That doesn't make what's out now BAD, especially if what's out now is better than what you have! Buy when you need it, and to iMikeT it sounds like you need it.

God, I can't wait for the inevitable flood of "OMG SHOULD I WAIT FOR PENRYN" threads that will inevitably start spawning come WWDC time.

Penryn = the new PowerBook G5. You heard it here first.

Episteme
Jan 29, 2007, 12:42 PM
Anyone know anything about what SSE4 brings to the table? Is it something that Apple would be looking for to speed up Core Image or Core Audio?

Other than that, this sounds like a simple drop-in, and by early 2008 we should see these in some systems.

SSE4 is a "break with tradition" for Intel, in that it's not a bunch of pure multimedia extensions, so in theory they could speed up a lot of software.

The extensions offer a variety of common relatively processor-intensive operations as single instructions, including stuff such as hardware CRC32 calculation, and rounding of numbers to the spec of various high level languages (Java, C99, etc.). There's also some improved register transfer stuff, advanced string compare and some arithmetic instructions. There's probably more I've forgotten.

I've read various places that Penryn will have an incomplete SSE4 implementation i.e. not all instructions will be implemented. Whether this means that what has been released publically is only what will be implemented in Penryn, or whether Penryn will only have a subset of that, I don't know. I've not seen it commented on anywhere that I can remember.

Of course, the clockspeed bump from the shrink and the 50% larger L2 cache will likely show much greater gains across the board for speed... :)

roland.g
Jan 29, 2007, 12:46 PM
I've wanted a Mac since the intel chips were introduced. And I just saved up enough for the Macbook pro that I've wanted, but after hearing all the recent news of LCDs, speed bump, flash booting, longer battery life, Leopard, iLife 07' and Logic 8 I decided to wait. But now this is making me think about waiting till 08' which is crazy cause we are still in January 07! That's a whole year! Even if we all waited until 08' for the new chips we'll be hearing about greater technology and speed bumps and upgrades. It never ends. . . not even for a couple months.:mad:

So buy a used or refurb macbook or pro to get you through the year and sell it when the new stuff comes out.

shawnce
Jan 29, 2007, 12:58 PM
Wikipedia has a decent listing of SSE4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE4) instructions and for more details see the white paper (ftp://download.intel.com/technology/architecture/new-instructions-paper.pdf).

gnasher729
Jan 29, 2007, 01:21 PM
hafnium? How much of that is there on earth/how easy is it to mine? I hope the mining of it isn't a major environmental nightmare like so many metals. I wonder if this will change the market for hafnium seriously.

other than that, yay 45 nm!

Considering that the Hafnium is supposed to replace the gate dielectric with a thickness of 1.2 nm (that is nanometer, that is 1 billionth of a meter), I don't think we have to worry.

Assuming a 200 square millimeter chip, one cubic centimetre of Hafnium would be enough for four million chips. It's density is quite high at 13.3 gram per cubic centimeter, even so, one gram will be enough for about 300,000 chips.

AidenShaw
Jan 29, 2007, 02:19 PM
Other than that, this sounds like a simple drop-in, and by early 2008 we should see these in some systems.

Apple was quite slow in adopting Core 2, and *still* isn't offering quad-core Kentsfield/Cloverton systems - even though the other Intel manufacturers have been selling them for months.

Eidorian
Jan 29, 2007, 02:32 PM
Apple was quite slow in adopting Core 2, and *still* isn't offering quad-core Kentsfield/Cloverton systems - even though the other Intel manufacturers have been selling them for months.Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.

My guesses on Gilo is that it's just the codename for Merom in its Socket P form factor.

Episteme
Jan 29, 2007, 03:46 PM
Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.

My guesses on Gilo is that it's just the codename for Merom in its Socket P form factor.

Possibly. Intel has offered the same core (e.g. Willamette in both S423 and S478) in multiple socket forms in the past though.

It depends how much has changed. I know Socket P heralds the move to an 800MT/s FSB so perhaps that and some other changes have been deemed worthy.

OTOH, the roadmaps I've seen said Gilo was "multi-core" rather than "dual-core", which is usually Intel-speak for 4 (or more, occasionally).

dernhelm
Jan 29, 2007, 03:59 PM
Apple was quite slow in adopting Core 2, and *still* isn't offering quad-core Kentsfield/Cloverton systems - even though the other Intel manufacturers have been selling them for months.

I don't think Kentsfield/Cloverton ever made Apple's product roadmap at all. But a whole new processor at at 45nm size is very likely to. Does that mean that I think Apple will introduce this chip across their entire product range simultaneously? No. But unless something in the chip technology (e.g. SSE4) really throws them for some sort of loop, you should see something very early in 2008, and within months have everything moved over to the new chips.

I may be in the minority, but I applaud Apple for not trying to fit every chip Intel makes into one product or another, just for completeness sake. If Intel makes a chip that doesn't fit their current product portfolio, skip on it. I would've liked to see them be able to adopt the chips they did choose to use a little more quickly, but it hasn't seem to hurt them from a bottom line standpoint. So I doubt Apple feels like the C2D transition was too slow, or hurt them sales-wise at all.


---
:apple: :apple: :apple: 500th post! :apple: :apple: :apple:
---

iW00t
Jan 29, 2007, 04:10 PM
I may be in the minority, but I applaud Apple for not trying to fit every chip Intel makes into one product or another, just for completeness sake. If Intel makes a chip that doesn't fit their current product portfolio, skip on it. I would've liked to see them be able to adopt the chips they did choose to use a little more quickly, but it hasn't seem to hurt them from a bottom line standpoint. So I doubt Apple feels like the C2D transition was too slow, or hurt them sales-wise at all.


I agree.

I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

I am a simple minded consumer who uses Apple products. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why 8 processors running at a slower speed is more expensive than 4 processors running at a faster speed!

Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!

Eidorian
Jan 29, 2007, 04:15 PM
Possibly. Intel has offered the same core (e.g. Willamette in both S423 and S478) in multiple socket forms in the past though.

It depends how much has changed. I know Socket P heralds the move to an 800MT/s FSB so perhaps that and some other changes have been deemed worthy.

OTOH, the roadmaps I've seen said Gilo was "multi-core" rather than "dual-core", which is usually Intel-speak for 4 (or more, occasionally).I was surprised by Gilo honestly. I didn't see it mentioned until a read a roadmap a few months ago.

Can't it just be something from an older roadmap?

zblaxberg
Jan 29, 2007, 04:17 PM
Man, this whole "wait till '08" philosophy of mine is really paying off. I'll get a second revision Penryn/Santa Rosa MacBook with all the goodies.

But I need my MBP before I go to college in August!!!

Episteme
Jan 29, 2007, 04:22 PM
I don't think Kentsfield/Cloverton ever made Apple's product roadmap at all. But a whole new processor at at 45nm size is very likely to. Does that mean that I think Apple will introduce this chip across their entire product range simultaneously? No. But unless something in the chip technology (e.g. SSE4) really throws them for some sort of loop, you should see something very early in 2008, and within months have everything moved over to the new chips.

I may be in the minority, but I applaud Apple for not trying to fit every chip Intel makes into one product or another, just for completeness sake. If Intel makes a chip that doesn't fit their current product portfolio, skip on it. I would've liked to see them be able to adopt the chips they did choose to use a little more quickly, but it hasn't seem to hurt them from a bottom line standpoint. So I doubt Apple feels like the C2D transition was too slow, or hurt them sales-wise at all.

I can see the point of not going for every variant (e.g. Conroe) but it makes sense when a model is upgraded to move to the latest version (e.g. Yonah to Merom).

I'd assume Apple's changeover is timed to coincide with their supply line emptying of the older model.

I'm a little surprised there's no clovertown BTO option for the Mac Pro though.

iW00t
Jan 29, 2007, 04:23 PM
But I need my MBP before I go to college in August!!!

Santa Rosa, flash booting, and LED backlit displays are good enough!

Learn to count your blessings!

Episteme
Jan 29, 2007, 04:26 PM
I was surprised by Gilo honestly. I didn't see it mentioned until a read a roadmap a few months ago.

Can't it just be something from an older roadmap?

Yeah, could be.

I've seen it mentioned off and on for years, but back then it was a Nehalem variant -- but *THAT* Nehalem was a NetBurst chip and the successor to Tejas, running in the 8-10GHz range and due um... last-year-ish, I think.

It appears Intel reuses code-names... :)

Episteme
Jan 29, 2007, 04:28 PM
But I need my MBP before I go to college in August!!!

At worst, your MBP is the current C2D model (probably with Leopard).

It's still a very nice machine :)

Chef Medeski
Jan 29, 2007, 04:30 PM
Penryn and SSD is still a while away, IMO. If I were buying now, I would wait for LED screens, preloaded Leopard and iLife 07. When they add the LED screens, I'll bet you'll see a RAM bump, HD bump, graphics card bump, screen rez bump (for Leopard), and a SuperDrive bump. IMHO, of course.

Devinetely. It'll get Intel 802.11n chips plus Robson technology. This along with LED screens will mean hopefully an hour or two of extra battery life.

One thing you forgot though is bumped Core 2 Duo Chips, I know few know about this but they have 2.4 and 2.2Ghz chips now, which is a nice little bump so people dont feel like they have the SAME CPU altough it practically is. I know I know 40 Mhz.....

Kuska
Jan 29, 2007, 04:31 PM
New stuff:

I'm very very glad I asked - :eek: - Cheers!

iW00t
Jan 29, 2007, 04:34 PM
At worst, your MBP is the current C2D model (probably with Leopard).

It's still a very nice machine :)

With a screen that is either grainy with a dimmer right hand side (15") or one that has all round blotchy backlighting (17").

:rolleyes:

If come August I am like the OP and in the market, and Apple is still trying to milk its loyal customers with 1 year old technology at top dollar. I will just switch to a PC and make it a Hackintosh. Seriously.

Chef Medeski
Jan 29, 2007, 04:36 PM
Santa Rosa, flash booting, and LED backlit displays are good enough!

Learn to count your blessings!

Seriously. 10.5 plus Santa Rosa plus LED is bliss. If they can bump the batteries by 2 hours I would just cry. That would be too much for me. A case change would be even better.

Eidorian
Jan 29, 2007, 05:12 PM
Yeah, could be.

I've seen it mentioned off and on for years, but back then it was a Nehalem variant -- but *THAT* Nehalem was a NetBurst chip and the successor to Tejas, running in the 8-10GHz range and due um... last-year-ish, I think.

It appears Intel reuses code-names... :)Yeah Intel killed off a few codenames and rehashed some other ones.

It looks like this now for mobile..

Yonah (Napa) -> Merom (Napa/Santa Rosa) -> Penryn (Santa Rosa/Montevina)

Episteme
Jan 29, 2007, 05:52 PM
Yeah Intel killed off a few codenames and rehashed some other ones.

It looks like this now for mobile..

Yonah (Napa) -> Merom (Napa/Santa Rosa) -> Penryn (Santa Rosa/Montevina)

Yeah, that's the one I've seen too.

However, I've also seen a lot of mentions of Gilo around, all without any real details but being referred to as "mutli-core" and there's been a buzz for a while about a quad-based laptop platform...

So, old stuff that's gotten mixed in with the new, or something else?

Your guess is as good as mine...

AidenShaw
Jan 29, 2007, 06:23 PM
Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.
Huh?

Apple was one of the *last* manufacturers to announce Yonah-based systems.

CES '2006 was a Yonah festival, Apple didn't do anything with Yonah until Macworld 2006 the following week.

Stridder44
Jan 29, 2007, 06:33 PM
Seriously. 10.5 plus Santa Rosa plus LED is bliss. If they can bump the batteries by 2 hours I would just cry. That would be too much for me. A case change would be even better.


http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a10/rbsuave/poop.jpg

AidenShaw
Jan 29, 2007, 06:35 PM
I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

There are people who need the octo-core power now who would disagree with you.

And, why do you assume that selling an octo would mean that the quads would disappear? Other companies offer their customers the choice of an octo, or a quad that's slightly faster per thread.

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5060 3.20GHz, 2 X 2MB L2,1066 [add $130]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $930]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5150 2.66GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $520]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5140 2.33GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $260]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5130 2.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $130]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5120 1.86GHz, 4MB L2,1066 [add $60]
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5110 1.60GHz, 4MB L2,1066 [Included in Price]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5320 1.86GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1066 [add $620]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5355 2.66GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1333 [add $1,290]
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5345 2.33GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1333 [add $1,030]

Why is "choice" bad?


Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!

Oh, are you one of those people who panics when he sees a two-button mouse? :eek:

Eidorian
Jan 29, 2007, 06:37 PM
Huh?

Apple was one of the *last* manufacturers to announce Yonah-based systems.

CES '2006 was a Yonah festival, Apple didn't do anything with Yonah until Macworld 2006 the following week.Let me change that to having Yonah based machines shipping. I don't remember any other manufacturers having a shipping model one week after CES 2006.

Multimedia
Jan 29, 2007, 06:55 PM
I agree.

I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

I am a simple minded consumer who uses Apple products. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why 8 processors running at a slower speed is more expensive than 4 processors running at a faster speed!

Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!2.66GHz x 8 = 21.28GHz
3GHz x 4 = 12GHz

If you know your workflow is multi-threaded and can use all or most of those cores at once, this first generation of Quad Core processors is plenty faster than the Dual Core 3GHz Woody.

What's holding up Dual Clovertown's is Stoakley-Seaburg (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) which is only now just beginning to ship in quantity. Apple isn't skipping it. They're simply waiting for the rest of the parts to make an 8 core Mac Pro right. :rolleyes:

Episteme
Jan 29, 2007, 07:52 PM
I agree.

I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

Why?

I am a simple minded consumer who uses Apple products. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why 8 processors running at a slower speed is more expensive than 4 processors running at a faster speed!

Because it's more overall horsepower, and because it costs more to manufacture. More complex systems are like that.

For highly-parallelized tasks, the eight cores are a big win. Workloads such as like video rendering/compression, databases, etc.

Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!

I inquire in the spirit of genuine curiosity -- if you don't want to buy one, why is it of consequence if they do offer such a model for sale?

AidenShaw
Jan 29, 2007, 07:54 PM
Let me change that to having Yonah based machines shipping.
OK, I accept the change of topic. Apple was not first.

I don't remember any other manufacturers having a shipping model one week after CES 2006.
But then, neither did Apple.

Even so, there were verified reports of Yonah machines in the hands of other computer companies' customers before any reports of Apple customer shipments. (I'm separating machines sent to reviewers from machines delivered by FedEx to regular consumers.)

All I'm arguing is that your claim

Originally Posted by Eidorian
Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.

is simply wrong. Unless, of course, you realize that the timeline is compressed to the point where "one of the first" and "one of the last" are both accurate descriptions. ;)

They were definitely late in announcing, and while in the general ballpark within a week or two of other companies, they weren't the first to ship.

It's like the recordable DVD introduction. Many Apple fanbois "know" that Apple was first with recordable DVD drives as BTO.

Of course, they don't check their facts - otherwise they'd realize that Compaq announced systems with the same Pioneer drive a week or so before The Lord God Jobs walked onstage at Moscone.

Eidorian
Jan 29, 2007, 08:19 PM
OK, I accept the change of topic. Apple was not first.


But then, neither did Apple.

Even so, there were verified reports of Yonah machines in the hands of other computer companies' customers before any reports of Apple customer shipments. (I'm separating machines sent to reviewers from machines delivered by FedEx to regular consumers.)

All I'm arguing is that your claim

Originally Posted by Eidorian
Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.

is simply wrong. Unless, of course, you realize that the timeline is compressed to the point where "one of the first" and "one of the last" are both accurate descriptions. ;)

They were definitely late in announcing, and while in the general ballpark within a week or two of other companies, they weren't the first to ship.

It's like the recordable DVD introduction. Many Apple fanbois "know" that Apple was first with recordable DVD drives as BTO.

Of course, they don't check their facts - otherwise they'd realize that Compaq announced systems with the same Pioneer drive a week or so before The Lord God Jobs walked onstage at Moscone.iMac Core Duo shipped AT Macworld 2006. The MacBook Pro was delayed.

I don't need to listen to you about being a fanboy. Being such that I'm not. I'm that weak to fall for the RDF.

CJD2112
Jan 29, 2007, 08:33 PM
Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity... :(

Chef Medeski
Jan 29, 2007, 09:07 PM
Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity... :(

That would be nice. I guess the most plausible corollary to this would be better battery lifes on laptops, but since desktops dont use battery, energy efficiency isnt of major concern. I think if instead of getting enviro friendly materials, people just upgraded less; you would already be doing a huge step towards helping the world. But its definetly two step.

Good prinicple to uphold, hard one to implement beyonds your own hands (still hard to implement in your own too)

Swarmlord
Jan 29, 2007, 09:18 PM
[QUOTE=CJD2112;3302138]Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances.<snip>QUOTE]

I wouldn't call it obsolete. Big difference between not having the flagship model any more and having something that's obsolete.

Although I understand your sentiments, technology will always advance and when advanced technology is available those companies that want to survive will take advantage of it.

Erasmus
Jan 29, 2007, 11:10 PM
Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity... :(

OK, I wrote a long piece with which to flame you, and then my computer froze. I then started to write in point form so as to be faster, and my computer froze again. Therefore I will make this exceedingly quick, so as my computer does not freeze a third time when I'm in mid flame.

Third time lucky.

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. That's putting it lightly. Computers are not overly dangerous to the environment, and four cores will certainly not always be sufficient, even to the average consumer, and even within 1-2 years.

And I'll stop now before my computer dies. Maybe it's the heat? I'd be happy to elaborate later.

So unless that sarcasm applies to the whole post, Just No.

CJD2112
Jan 30, 2007, 12:04 AM
OK, I wrote a long piece with which to flame you, and then my computer froze. I then started to write in point form so as to be faster, and my computer froze again. Therefore I will make this exceedingly quick, so as my computer does not freeze a third time when I'm in mid flame.

Third time lucky.

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. That's putting it lightly. Computers are not overly dangerous to the environment, and four cores will certainly not always be sufficient, even to the average consumer, and even within 1-2 years.

And I'll stop now before my computer dies. Maybe it's the heat? I'd be happy to elaborate later.

So unless that sarcasm applies to the whole post, Just No.

Why do you disagree? You seem extremely upset, care to elaborate?

Erasmus
Jan 30, 2007, 02:35 AM
Why do you disagree? You seem extremely upset, care to elaborate?

Aw darnit! Now you're all nice and all, and I can't bring myself to flame you! :o :p

To say people don't need more than 4 cores is short sighted. Playing music while importing music in iTunes brings my computer to its knees. True, it's 6 years old, but what will we want our computers to do in another 6 years?
There are some processes that cannot get enough cores, such as raytracing (Bryce 5... it's free) or video processing (iMovie HD's effects (I am only assuming iMovie can use any number of cores, it probably can't, but I'm sure you see that as each core can take on an extra frame, having twice as many cores should halve the time it takes to add a particularly demanding video effect))

And I disagree with your statement about computers being polluting. I may have mentioned something about computers not being soluble in my dissappeared posts, and may or may not have mentioned that you and the Earth should get a room... :D

I would be exceptionally surprised if anything other than cost and performance convinced CPU manufacturers to change the materials they use. I mean SiO2 lasted 40 years... And Silicon isn't going anywhere...

So yeah. Computers are killing the environment slower than a single person is just by living, and anyone can find a use for any amount of power. It's human nature.

Evangelion
Jan 30, 2007, 05:04 AM
Man, this whole "wait till '08" philosophy of mine is really paying off. I'll get a second revision Penryn/Santa Rosa MacBook with all the goodies.

Penryn is the second revision of Core 2 Duo so to speak. After Penryn we will get a whole new architecture, not a "new revision".

devman
Jan 30, 2007, 07:20 AM
Why is "choice" bad?


http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail252.html

Evangelion
Jan 30, 2007, 08:15 AM
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail252.html

In return I could say: "One size does not fit all". Or do you think that Apple should eliminate all their computer-models, except iMac (or Mac Mini), since "Less is more"?

Macinposh
Jan 30, 2007, 10:10 AM
Computers are not overly dangerous to the environment, and four cores will certainly not always be sufficient, even to the average consumer, and even within 1-2 years.

Computers have been effecient enough for the "average user" last,what,5 years?

Average user reads emails once in a while,surfs few low demand websites,prints a recipe now and then,listens to a funny .mp3 song and plays a game of solitaire on sunday morning.Thats about it.

The young people in general are compeletely different breed,as are hobbyists and gamers.But they are not "average" users anymore,they are power users.

We (you? and me) people who work with the computers professionally,tend to look at things a bit too narrowmindedly,missing that the "average" peoples needs and habits are different.



And I'll stop now before my computer dies. Maybe it's the heat?

About the enviroment,uuh..never mind...

Dash4814
Jan 30, 2007, 10:19 AM
Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity... :(



I agree, which is why I use my computers until they're too obsolete to run new software. :D

Seriously, when I was a sophomore in high school I got a 1st gen "toilet seat" iBook (blue, of course) and used it until my third year of college, when Apple was releasing the newer versions of the OS and I needed better hardware to keep up. I bought a PowerMac G4 and have no plans to replace it until it has been rendered near-obsolete.

For your basic Joe C. Computeruser like me who uses it to type papers, surf the web, and mess with Adium and email you really can't beat the Mac's longevity.

Besides, I always saw replacing hardware every two years as a PC thing. One of the reasons I've only owned Apples is because they last so long.

CJD2112
Jan 30, 2007, 11:00 AM
and may or may not have mentioned that you and the Earth should get a room... :D

lol touché, but in all honesty, electronic waste is a serious environmental issue, always has been and always will be. Perhaps it is less harmful in quanity and pollution than the environmental waste generated by the average (American) person, but it still is waste that can and should be diminished. Excusing it by comparison to other waste isn't logical, but just an excuse.

Some links to some reading :) :

http://www.h-gac.com/NR/rdonlyres/ezeeeobsvjoe3gqpricmnwl6zi3p46toh46hzvui7pd4hsjonslhz4xgu3zeltardwoeuqxrm7bksxxikujqs57xfxb/E-waste.pdf

http://www.eerl.org/

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57151,00.html

http://www.ewaste.ch/facts_and_figures/
"Did you know that the annual amount of e-waste generated from end-of-life electrical and electronic products (WEEE) is estimated to be a two digit amount, in million tons! And this is predicted to double in the coming decades."

... there are tons of articles online, just search "ewaste facts", "electronic evironmental pollution", etc. :apple:

CJD2112
Jan 30, 2007, 11:04 AM
:) to everyone who responded to my comment. I was afraid I'd be blasted to kingdom come for making a remark on e-waste on a website dedicated to an electronics company...

AidenShaw
Jan 30, 2007, 04:01 PM
iMac Core Duo shipped AT Macworld 2006. The MacBook Pro was delayed.
OK, that's right.

The iMac has nothing that I look for in a computer, therefore I tend to ignore it.
_________________________

I suspect that Apple's penchant for secrecy helped them make early customer shipments.

While other manufacturers were using their small inital allocations of Yonahs to build machines for demos (CES2006, for example) and shows and reviewers - Apple was able to ship some to customers.

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2007, 04:37 PM
OK, that's right.

The iMac has nothing that I look for in a computer, therefore I tend to ignore it.
_________________________

I suspect that Apple's penchant for secrecy helped them make early customer shipments.

While other manufacturers were using their small inital allocations of Yonahs to build machines for demos (CES2006, for example) and shows and reviewers - Apple was able to ship some to customers.That works out. :D

I do remember A LOT of demo Core Duo units. It was still sometime until they trickled out into the retail though. Apple had the iMac shipping a week after.

I'm also working on the Merom and Penryn articles more often now.

SPUY767
Jan 30, 2007, 07:24 PM
Well, hafnium is used in nuclear reactor control rods, so I think there will at least be competition for it. As to how much exists in the crust, it's about as common as uranium or tin (about 5 ppm). It's not easy to produce, since it's always bound with zirconium in nature, and requires a cascaded fractional crystallization process to purify.

Looks like someone went to wikipedia.

SPUY767
Jan 30, 2007, 07:31 PM
Sounds a little optimistic to me, LED screens should cost a fair bit more. But I agree, wait till leopard is out to buy. The bumps are rarely worth waiting for, though LED would be a big bump (yay low power) that would make sense- but that also means that you don't know that your wait will be fruitful.

LED Screens should cost LESS to manufacture, the average cost of brite white LEDs it in the 5-9 cent range in 100ish quantities, probably less the more you buy. That's for the 3mm units, 6 candelas each, I can't see them using anything larger than that for slimmness reasons. I'm speculating of course, as I do not know how this thing is going to be manufactured, but if It's anything like the design I tried to patent a number of years ago, and it may or may not be, my patent was designed, it will place a number of LED's around the perimeter of a light distribution material a la 3M's light pipes. The brightness of the display was controlled by reducing the number of LED's illuminated at any given time. Hard to explain, but it SHOULD be cheaper as it would be cheaper to manufacture.

Erasmus
Jan 30, 2007, 07:33 PM
About the enviroment,uuh..never mind...

Ack! The irony! Although I must suggest again that your standard person generates more heat just by living than your standard computer.

Computers have been effecient enough for the "average user" last,what,5 years?

Average user reads emails once in a while,surfs few low demand websites,prints a recipe now and then,listens to a funny .mp3 song and plays a game of solitaire on sunday morning.Thats about it.

The young people in general are compeletely different breed,as are hobbyists and gamers.But they are not "average" users anymore,they are power users.

We (you? and me) people who work with the computers professionally,tend to look at things a bit too narrowmindedly,missing that the "average" peoples needs and habits are different.

Although I understand where you are coming from, and agree with this to some extent, pretty much any computer built in the last 10 years would fulfil all these roles. But people don't buy 100 Mhz computers with 200 MB HDDs and 16 MB RAM. OSX Tiger/Leopard wouldn't run on it. Safari wouldn't run on it. iTunes wouldn't run on it. So unless you are willing to use 10 year old software running on OS 7, you need a reasonably new computer. It doesn't seem far fetched that in the near future even four or eight cores will fail to run modern software, or even the operating system of the day.

I would also like to point out that for about 3 years of those 5 you mentioned, it is at least my impression that CPU manufacture hit a mini dark age. In like three years, Pentium chips didn't really get much faster, and IBM's G4/G5 really just hovered at between 2-2.5 Ghz. Now of course, we have a doubling of cores every two years, and faster cores in between. So rather than computer performance bein roughly the same, as it was just a few years ago, it is now once again rapidly picking up speed exponentially, and software makers will use it. So your software that runs great on one core today will need four cores in a few years time.

P.S. I might also add that this argument is a bit pointless, because Mac Minis and iMacs, Apple's average consumer computers will only be dual core for another year yet at least, with the possibility that the high end iMacs will get 4 cores in early 2008 with Penryn, but more likely 2009 with Nehalem (pessimist in me). The only computer that is likely to get 8 cores is the Mac Pro, at least for a couple of years yet, and I'm sure we can all see that Mac Pro users can find a use for that extra power.

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2007, 09:04 PM
P.S. I might also add that this argument is a bit pointless, because Mac Minis and iMacs, Apple's average consumer computers will only be dual core for another year yet at least, with the possibility that the high end iMacs will get 4 cores in early 2008 with Penryn, but more likely 2009 with Nehalem (pessimist in me). The only computer that is likely to get 8 cores is the Mac Pro, at least for a couple of years yet, and I'm sure we can all see that Mac Pro users can find a use for that extra power.The biggest issue is putting a quad-core chip that's cool enough into the form factor. If left unchecked a Core Duo can cook the insides at 190° F. It's designed to handle that but it's not fun to see.

We wanted to see Conroe in the iMac a several months ago. We know that the current form factor can at least handle a 45-55 watt TDP processor from the specifications of the PowerPC 970FX.

My guess is that the best quad core we can get for the next two years would fall into that upper area.

Episteme
Jan 30, 2007, 09:17 PM
The biggest issue is putting a quad-core chip that's cool enough into the form factor. If left unchecked a Core Duo can cook the insides at 190° F. It's designed to handle that but it's not fun to see.

We wanted to see Conroe in the iMac a several months ago. We know that the current form factor can at least handle a 45-55 watt TDP processor from the specifications of the PowerPC 970FX.

My guess is that the best quad core we can get for the next two years would fall into that upper area.

The die-shrink and high-k process are expected to give a fairly decent improvment, heat-wise.

Beyond that, I was just reading Penryn's looking likely to offer HT, so 2+2 looks likely. Still two cores, but it plays four on TV ;)

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2007, 09:24 PM
The die-shrink and high-k process are expected to give a fairly decent improvment, heat-wise.

Beyond that, I was just reading Penryn's looking likely to offer HT, so 2+2 looks likely. Still two cores, but it plays four on TV ;)Ah virtual cores then. Sure if programs can take advantage of 2 logical + 2 virtual by then. I remember Hyper-Threading Round 1 on the Pentium 4.

I kept telling people that it would go nowhere. Then Core 2 drops it proving me right. Then it returns with Penryn.

CJD2112
Jan 30, 2007, 10:07 PM
Ack! The irony! Although I must suggest again that your standard person generates more heat just by living than your standard computer.



Although I understand where you are coming from, and agree with this to some extent, pretty much any computer built in the last 10 years would fulfil all these roles. But people don't buy 100 Mhz computers with 200 MB HDDs and 16 MB RAM. OSX Tiger/Leopard wouldn't run on it. Safari wouldn't run on it. iTunes wouldn't run on it. So unless you are willing to use 10 year old software running on OS 7, you need a reasonably new computer. It doesn't seem far fetched that in the near future even four or eight cores will fail to run modern software, or even the operating system of the day.

I would also like to point out that for about 3 years of those 5 you mentioned, it is at least my impression that CPU manufacture hit a mini dark age. In like three years, Pentium chips didn't really get much faster, and IBM's G4/G5 really just hovered at between 2-2.5 Ghz. Now of course, we have a doubling of cores every two years, and faster cores in between. So rather than computer performance bein roughly the same, as it was just a few years ago, it is now once again rapidly picking up speed exponentially, and software makers will use it. So your software that runs great on one core today will need four cores in a few years time.

P.S. I might also add that this argument is a bit pointless, because Mac Minis and iMacs, Apple's average consumer computers will only be dual core for another year yet at least, with the possibility that the high end iMacs will get 4 cores in early 2008 with Penryn, but more likely 2009 with Nehalem (pessimist in me). The only computer that is likely to get 8 cores is the Mac Pro, at least for a couple of years yet, and I'm sure we can all see that Mac Pro users can find a use for that extra power.

Still, you haven't stated how technology isn't polluting the environment. E-waste has become a serious problem, especially in third world nations in which newer technology that may use fewer parts is difficult to afford. China had the highest growth in number of computer users per capita in the period 1993-2000. It grew a massive 1052%, compared to a world average of 181%. E-waste from CRT monitors, plastics, lead, mercury, barium, arsenic, beryllium, BFR's, cadmium, CFC's, chromium, selenium and numerous other toxics quickly filling up landfills. In 2000, the U.S. had 2,124,400 tons of ewaste from video products, audio products, computers and telecommunications equipment. Computer parts are made from materials that are NOT eco-friendly, and as society buys more ipods, monitors, keyboards, processors, sound cards, mice, web cams, etc., the more yesterdays products find permanent homes in our backyards.

Recycling current electronic parts isn't solving the situation. The formation or discharge of hazardous emissions during the recycling of electrical and electronic equipment depends highly on the handling of electronic waste. Some recycling processes (as cable burning) applied in transition and developing countries can cause serious health problems and contaminate air, water and soil. A pilot study in San Jose, California found that the cost per pound of glass-to-glass recycling of computer monitors in the US was $0.50 compared to only $0.05 in China.

It's not just about "heat" or energy issues generated from use of electronics, but about the waste from throwing away products that aren't deemed useful based on commercial standards. Just because Apple or Microsoft develop software that requires faster processors, improved monitors and generous amounts of RAM doesn't mean society necessarily NEEDS it (hi, it wasn't too long ago that we were living just fine without cell phones and computer systems, needing and WANTING are two very different concepts). Companies are more concerned with profit margins, annual growth and happy stock holders than about the long-term negative effects their products have on the only planet we live on. Yes, these advancements are fantastic and interesting, why else am I here reading macrumors every morning. However, instead of making it faster and more dazzling, how about using and/or inventing materials that can be easily recycled without harming the environment, or manufacturing products that may be easily upgraded without wasting current parts while still putting money in the hands of the corporations. It's a very similar argument to the combustion engine. In over 100 years, automobiles have become reasonably effecient, yet they still operate on gasoline, one of the biggest contributors to pollution and global warming. Technology such as hydrogen fuel cell (The principle of the fuel cell was discovered by German scientist Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and published in the January 1839 edition of the "Philosophical Magazine") are viable energy options that do not deter the overall performance of automobiles while providing less moving parts and producing water vapor. Electronic manufacturers need to adopt this similar thinking in their production of newer products, bringing harmony between technological advancements and the environment. Otherwise, our obsession with newer and better will undoubtedly be coursing through our viens, literally, in our drinking water and grown foods... :eek:

Episteme
Jan 30, 2007, 10:14 PM
Ah virtual cores then. Sure if programs can take advantage of 2 logical + 2 virtual by then. I remember Hyper-Threading Round 1 on the Pentium 4.

I kept telling people that it would go nowhere. Then Core 2 drops it proving me right. Then it returns with Penryn.

HT on the P4 showed some decent improvements once they tuned the OS schedulers to grok the difference between physical and virtual processors. It wasn't so much a throughput thing as a responsiveness thing -- if you had a CPU bound task permanently pegging the CPU then the system didn't bog down as much. I recall some benchmarks showing mp3 encoding at the same time as gaming showing a decent speedup, too...

I wasn't sure this would be as effective in a dual-core world, purely because instead of a virtual core taking up the slack on unused resources for responsiveness, you've got a real core doing it... so, if the actual throughput change is negligable and the responsiveness isn't really improved...? I guess if you now have two processes/threads that peg CPUs, but it seems unless it improves throughput, it's a diminishing returns thing...

Of course, HT was there to mask the huge latencies introduced by that massive 30+ stage pipeline, which Merom (and presumably Penryn?) isn't lumbered with...

iW00t
Jan 30, 2007, 10:54 PM
Of course, HT was there to mask the huge latencies introduced by that massive 30+ stage pipeline, which Merom (and presumably Penryn?) isn't lumbered with...

If that is the case why is Hyperthreading making a comeback with Penryn?

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2007, 10:59 PM
HT on the P4 showed some decent improvements once they tuned the OS schedulers to grok the difference between physical and virtual processors. It wasn't so much a throughput thing as a responsiveness thing -- if you had a CPU bound task permanently pegging the CPU then the system didn't bog down as much. I recall some benchmarks showing mp3 encoding at the same time as gaming showing a decent speedup, too...

I wasn't sure this would be as effective in a dual-core world, purely because instead of a virtual core taking up the slack on unused resources for responsiveness, you've got a real core doing it... so, if the actual throughput change is negligable and the responsiveness isn't really improved...? I guess if you now have two processes/threads that peg CPUs, but it seems unless it improves throughput, it's a diminishing returns thing...

Of course, HT was there to mask the huge latencies introduced by that massive 30+ stage pipeline, which Merom (and presumably Penryn?) isn't lumbered with...I was out of the loop for that time. The short pipelines should so much more of a benefit.

Northwood was surprisingly capable in retrospect. Prescott was a dead end with the heat generation issues.

Episteme
Jan 30, 2007, 11:04 PM
If that is the case why is Hyperthreading making a comeback with Penryn?

Presumably because Intel's engineers can see practical applications for it, or because Intel's marketing guys are pushing for it.

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2007, 11:10 PM
Presumably because Intel's engineers can see practical applications for it, or because Intel's marketing guys are pushing for it.Well rumor is that it is only disabled on Core 2. It's a dirt easy way to add some more smoothness if it doesn't cost the ability to put in a logical core.

Episteme
Jan 30, 2007, 11:20 PM
I was out of the loop for that time. The short pipelines should so much more of a benefit.

Northwood was surprisingly capable in retrospect. Prescott was a dead end with the heat generation issues.

Well, it's during pipeline stalls that HTT really shows the benefit, so the shorter pipeline should reduce the effectiveness -- assuming all else is equal, which we don't know yet.

As for Prescott, yeah... even Intel finally admitted that when they killed Tejas off.

I found that round quite amusing because I'd been predicting Intel would do just what they did for a couple of years or so :)

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2007, 11:22 PM
Well, it's during pipeline stalls that HTT really shows the benefit, so the shorter pipeline should reduce the effectiveness -- assuming all else is equal, which we don't know yet.

As for Prescott, yeah... even Intel finally admitted that when they killed Tejas off.

I found that round quite amusing because I'd been predicting Intel would do just what they did for a couple of years or so :)I'm beginning to understand more the benefits of hyperthreading and its relation to the pipeline now. Thanks for that.

Now since OS X has rather good scheduling, it should benefit from it. Weren't the original Intel developer kits just Power Mac G5's with Pentium 4's in them? It'd be nice to get the word on OS X's effectiveness at using hyperthreading.

Episteme
Jan 30, 2007, 11:23 PM
Well rumor is that it is only disabled on Core 2. It's a dirt easy way to add some more smoothness if it doesn't cost the ability to put in a logical core.

From memory, so this may be inaccurate (and I'm too lazy to look it up), adding HTT to the P4 required an extra 5% of die-size.

I do wonder about how noticeable it'll be on a shorter-pipeline dual-core CPU though.

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2007, 11:27 PM
From memory, so this may be inaccurate (and I'm too lazy to look it up), adding HTT to the P4 required an extra 5% of die-size.

I do wonder about how noticeable it'll be on a shorter-pipeline dual-core CPU though."According to Intel, the first implementation only used an additional 5% of the die area over the "normal" processor, yet yielded performance improvements of 15–30%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthreading

Erasmus
Jan 31, 2007, 12:37 AM
The biggest issue is putting a quad-core chip that's cool enough into the form factor. If left unchecked a Core Duo can cook the insides at 190° F. It's designed to handle that but it's not fun to see.

We wanted to see Conroe in the iMac a several months ago. We know that the current form factor can at least handle a 45-55 watt TDP processor from the specifications of the PowerPC 970FX.

My guess is that the best quad core we can get for the next two years would fall into that upper area.

I remember, I wanted Conroe too, but it didn't happen. Obviously 65W is a bit too high. If they can't put a Conroe in it, maybe they'll put the 45nm shrink in, but they won't put in a quad core unless we are extremely lucky. At least until we either have a massive redesign of the iMac, or we have sub 60W quad cores. Of course, if we end up with a four core "Mini Mac Pro" (as I keep flogging, but it falls on deaf Apple shaped ears) then that could mean the iMac stays as a Mac Mini with a screen (not quite that bad, but you get the idea).

Apple seems to have decided that the iMac will be a silent, skinny, sexy computer, but doesn't care how fast it is. We can only hope that we find a quad core mini tower in the near future to fill the ever increasing gap between 2 core iMac and 8 and eventually 16 core Mac Pro.

Erasmus
Jan 31, 2007, 12:51 AM
(A whole lot of stuff about e-waste)

Personally, I like the idea of fuel cells (hydrogen fuel cells... For some reason Americans sometimes call fuel tanks fuel cells, but whatever), but on an unrelated track, hydrogen comes from either fossil fuels, or electricity, which comes from fossil fuels. No win. The reason I like hydrogen fuel cells is I like Hydrogen, because it can be made from water, and it can be used for nuclear fusion. Electricity turns water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, Hydrogen fuses into Helium or other Hydrogen isotopes, makes electricity. Water goes in, electricity, Helium and Oxygen comes out, with enough spare hydrogen to start a hydrogen fuel business on the side. No risk of Chernobyl style "Nuclear Meltdown", not that modern fission reactors are dangerous anyway. Environment wins, we win, everyone wins, except petroleum companies, but who gives a stuff about them? But everyone today hears the word Nuclear and frieks out. Totally unfair.

The main reason why fuel cells aren't used today is they have a terrible power to weight ratio. Hydrogen being a gas makes it almost impossible to store in anything but an extremely heavy pressure vessel. This is why Hydrogen will NOT be used in commercial passenger jets for a very very long time. Similarly it is expensive to originally purchase. In theory it is good for the environment, but no-one will buy it because it's just not practical. Like Nuclear fusion, the technology is not yet here to make it work. When it is, it will be awesome.

It is similar with computers. Materials are used because they do the job the best, with credit to affordability. Until there are materials that do the job better than the materials we use today that are also good for the environment, we are stuck with heavy metals and plastics. I might add also that Apple doesn't sell CRT screens, but I'm sure you alredy know that (well at least to my knowledge).

Now I've forgotten almost everything you have said, and am struggling to link random rants together into a proper argument, because I think I got a bit carried away.

Basically, computer manufcturers use what is available to them to make the best product they can. I find it unlikely that an "environmentally friendly" computer would even work. The best thing we can do as a community is to keep up efforts in improving recycling techniques, and eliminating any dangerous chemicals from products that don't have to be there, or can be phased out for something else. CFC's are a good example of this. It seems likely in the future that carbon compounds such as nanotubes will not only replace many more hazardous substances used today, but will perform far better at their intended role than the old material.

So yeah. I congratulate anyone who actually reads all of this way too long and tedious post.

Eidorian
Jan 31, 2007, 12:57 AM
I remember, I wanted Conroe too, but it didn't happen. Obviously 65W is a bit too high. If they can't put a Conroe in it, maybe they'll put the 45nm shrink in, but they won't put in a quad core unless we are extremely lucky. At least until we either have a massive redesign of the iMac, or we have sub 60W quad cores. Of course, if we end up with a four core "Mini Mac Pro" (as I keep flogging, but it falls on deaf Apple shaped ears) then that could mean the iMac stays as a Mac Mini with a screen (not quite that bad, but you get the idea).

Apple seems to have decided that the iMac will be a silent, skinny, sexy computer, but doesn't care how fast it is. We can only hope that we find a quad core mini tower in the near future to fill the ever increasing gap between 2 core iMac and 8 and eventually 16 core Mac Pro.Well then again, Merom was a pin-compatible drop-in to Socket M. The GMA X3000 should resolve some of the graphical issues of the Mac mini. It's just going to take a stock RAM of 1 GB to really use it.

The issue is that the acoustic properties of the hardware are taken more into account with the post iMac G5 iSight internals. The Rev. A/B G5's sacrificed quietness for fitting a G5 into a 2" thick case. The redesigned internals are MUCH quieter even when using the PowerPC 970FX.

If Apple ever decides to put a desktop chip back into the iMac, it should work. It's just that they need to give up on trying to keep their machines so quiet.

iMac Internals (http://www.math.purdue.edu/~abarreno/imac_comparison.jpg)

Erasmus
Jan 31, 2007, 01:13 AM
Well then again, Merom was a pin-compatible drop-in to Socket M. The GMA X3000 should resolve some of the graphical issues of the Mac mini. It's just going to take a stock RAM of 1 GB to really use it.

The issue is that the acoustic properties of the hardware are taken more into account with the post iMac G5 iSight internals. The Rev. A/B G5's sacrificed quietness for fitting a G5 into a 2" thick case. The redesigned internals are MUCH quieter even when using the PowerPC 970FX.

If Apple ever decides to put a desktop chip back into the iMac, it should work. It's just that they need to give up on trying to keep their machines so quiet.

iMac Internals (http://www.math.purdue.edu/~abarreno/imac_comparison.jpg)

With a bit of luck, Apple will shove a quad core chip in the iMac, and give it a better graphics card. With a bit more luck, Apple will give us a box made for a quad core chip, which supports DX10 graphics cards, such as the soon to be awesome X2800 series, or whatever they will be called.

I should think that only one will happen, because one will in Apple's mind nullify the need for the other.

gnasher729
Jan 31, 2007, 04:21 AM
Average user reads emails once in a while,surfs few low demand websites,prints a recipe now and then,listens to a funny .mp3 song and plays a game of solitaire on sunday morning.Thats about it.

Average user rips a dozen DVDs to H.264 with two pass encoding and doesn't understand why each DVD takes hours and hours...

gnasher729
Jan 31, 2007, 04:50 AM
According to The Inquirer: "Our previous article was wrong. Penryn does not have and will never have hyperthreading. "

Macinposh
Jan 31, 2007, 07:01 AM
Average user rips a dozen DVDs to H.264 with two pass encoding and doesn't understand why each DVD takes hours and hours...


Wrong.

Average users dont rip dvd´s. And they think that H.264 is birdflue.
What you describe is a poweruser.


There was a article that tried to study the character of the "Average" user.
Their conclusion in short was that "uses computer 3-6 times a week,10 minutes at time,uses browser for banking and checking out the local news and checks his/hers emails almost every time."

The average user is looking very much like my parents...


Erasmus,nowhere did i say "a 10 year old computer". I talked more about 5 year old ones...

Many programs will benfit minimally form the advent of the multicore-ism.
Some programs just dont translete well to that enviroment,just because their inherit nature. (mail,browsers..)
I would dare to say that cleaning up and optimizing code in those areas would translate to greater speed achievements than the implementation of the quad/octo cores... :)

BUT. It is not cost effective for the companies to do it,because there is abundant aviable power in the computing! And for companies like apple,who provides software AND hardware,it would be double cost prohibitive,because it would slow down the cycle of people updating your hardware!
Why bother,because everything just works?

And it´s NOW that we get back to the enviromental issues here...
:D


But let´s not get started on that..

Dont get me wrong, i am not a anti-developement kind of guy, (more of a sustained developement) but the prevailing atmosphere in the commerce is not healthy at the moment,and with the introduction of qartal economics it is straightforwar going to hell,imho.

[/end of rant]

Macinposh
Jan 31, 2007, 08:38 AM
I never commented in that discussion. :confused:

Eidoran,Erasmus,Evangelion,Episteme,eWaste...must...concentrate....more...



Sorry,Eid,now corrected..

Erasmus
Jan 31, 2007, 05:25 PM
Erasmus,nowhere did i say "a 10 year old computer". I talked more about 5 year old ones...[/end of rant]

OK, my point was this, as succinctly as possible. Theoretically, a 10 year old computer has enough power to do what your "average consumer" does. Today, however, software is so bloated with translucent effects and pretty animations that a 10 year old computer cannot run Safari, and even 5 year old computers (ie. pre- G4 iMacs) must be starting to feel the heat right about now.

The point is some time down the line even the average user is going to want more than 4 cores, as firstly even basic software will require more and more power to run (I mean just look at Vista!), and the "average user" will want to do more demanding things. My computer in theory should have no trouble running those timy little apps called Widgets, yet it is incapable of doing that little water effect when you drop one on the desktop. Of course this won't happen for a number of years.

This brings me to my second point, that the "average" user's computer will not have more than four cores for a number of years. Unless I've missed something, there are no quad core laptop chips in the works that we know of yet, at least until 2010ish. Today, the "average user" machine, the Mac Mini, uses laptop components, and out of date laptop components at that. The "prosumer" machine, the iMac, uses modern laptop components.

The point in conclusion is that low end computers will become 8-core just about when the average consumer starts to have a need for it, or it is forseen that the user will have a need for it within the computer's lifespan.

I do however agree that the "average user" does not rip DVDs in H.264 ;) but they would if they knew they could play it on their iPod Video :D .

Episteme
Feb 1, 2007, 07:13 PM
Unless I've missed something, there are no quad core laptop chips in the works that we know of yet, at least until 2010ish. Today, the "average user" machine, the Mac Mini, uses laptop components, and out of date laptop components at that. The "prosumer" machine, the iMac, uses modern laptop components.

There are Penryn samples that are quad-core. Whether they're destined to be desktop or mobile parts, who knows.

Erasmus
Feb 3, 2007, 03:04 AM
There are Penryn samples that are quad-core. Whether they're destined to be desktop or mobile parts, who knows.

I believe Penryn is a code name similar to the name "Merom". Merom was actually the mobile part, but Intel ended up heaping the mobile, desktop and server "Core 2 Duo" architecture parts together, and just called them Merom, almost like saying they were the Merom generation.

Or take the name Pentium. How many unique chips can be heaped under that name? Focussing even just on Pentium IV, there's still Pentium M's and dual core Pentiums and 64 bit Pentiums etc etc etc.

I feel confident that we will find that the mobile part of Penryn will be dual core exclusive, with maybe a low power single core down the line. Only the desktop and server parts will have quad core options. When Nehalem comes out, it will also split into different parts, as will each successive generation, which tend to have one overall name, over the individual names of each part.

Episteme
Feb 3, 2007, 04:14 AM
I believe Penryn is a code name similar to the name "Merom". Merom was actually the mobile part, but Intel ended up heaping the mobile, desktop and server "Core 2 Duo" architecture parts together, and just called them Merom, almost like saying they were the Merom generation.

Indeed - hence the second half of my statement. :)

Having said that, Merom was the codename for the microarch, but eventually they split them into Conroe, Woodcrest, etc.

Similarly, we already know of Wolfdale and a few others, so whether Penryn is intended as an umbrella name or not is rather unclear.

The fact these are Intel code names and not really intended for public consumption means the waters will likely remain muddy for some time.... Having said that, if they can do a low-voltage part with good yields, I wouldn't be astounded to see a high-end mobile quad core part within that generation.

Or take the name Pentium. How many unique chips can be heaped under that name? Focussing even just on Pentium IV, there's still Pentium M's and dual core Pentiums and 64 bit Pentiums etc etc etc.

Pentium, of course, was never a code-name, but a trademark and a brand name, so it's apples to oranges.

I feel confident that we will find that the mobile part of Penryn will be dual core exclusive, with maybe a low power single core down the line. Only the desktop and server parts will have quad core options. When Nehalem comes out, it will also split into different parts, as will each successive generation, which tend to have one overall name, over the individual names of each part.

I agree this is easily the most likely outcome, but I don't think it's a huge stretch to go quad-core. It's all down to the TPM really. Battery life wouldn't impress, but that's never stopped Intel before -- Pentium 4M and Celeron M were both less than impressive. There's a significant and growing desktop replacement market that intends to run off AC power for the vast majority of time. My former boss did just that with 17" Toshiba "laptop" that is enormous -- I suspect it can sleep a vacationing family of three if necessary.

Executive summary: I agree with you, I was mostly just being a smart-ass :)

Erasmus
Feb 3, 2007, 04:37 AM
(Stuff)

I agree, I suppose. I am also often just being a smartass. It's fun.

OK, the Pentium bit was a bit of a stretch, but you seem to have understood where I was coming from.

There will undoubtedly be quad core laptops made using Penryn, just like there are laptops running X1900s and 19" screens. The thing is that Apple is unlikely to do this, at least IMO.

There is hope however for a quad core chip in the iMac. Hopefully we don't have to wait too long to have quad core lappies too.

Episteme
Feb 6, 2007, 02:48 AM
I agree, I suppose. I am also often just being a smartass. It's fun.

OK, the Pentium bit was a bit of a stretch, but you seem to have understood where I was coming from.

There will undoubtedly be quad core laptops made using Penryn, just like there are laptops running X1900s and 19" screens. The thing is that Apple is unlikely to do this, at least IMO.

There is hope however for a quad core chip in the iMac. Hopefully we don't have to wait too long to have quad core lappies too.

Indeed -- I was disappointed, albeit unsurprised when the newer iMacs with C2D were Merom rather than Conroe. I'll assume it's a heat thang, since Conroe's both cheaper and faster... of course, it could be something related to discounts and sticking with Merom/whole Napa platform garnered huge discounts...

Eidorian
Feb 9, 2007, 10:55 AM
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9010258&pageNumber=3

Finally, a mobile CPU known by the code-name "Gilo" (pronounced GHEE-lo) has raised a considerable amount of intrigue. Nothing is known about Gilo except that it is a 65nm CPU, leading to widespread speculation that this will be Intel's quad-core mobile processor. Intel has refused to confirm this speculation.We we get a mention of Gilo. It might still be on the roadmap though as a cover for something good.

Butthead
Feb 9, 2007, 06:27 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9010258&pageNumber=3

We we get a mention of Gilo. It might still be on the roadmap though as a cover for something good.

If Gilo is on 65nm process, then the die size is too big to go into a MBP, without a complete MB redesign. I doubt we'll even see a quad at 45nm, we'll have to wait until 32nm or smaller. Perhaps the economies are right to put a quad in a MBP 17in, but unless there is a huge performance advantage over dual core, I don't think it would make it into even the larger laptops from Apple.

As anandtech mentioned, Intel has been far more forward with letting out this kind of info as in recent past. Suggesting more of a marketing campaign is in operation here, considering falling profit margins and stiff competition. All good for us, but I can't see that 45nm is moving along much faster than indicated in the recent past. Late '07 or early '08 we'll see these 45nm chips in the MBP.

I'm more interested in Santa Rosa anyway, 45nm process is too far out in the future to be certain of anything (will there be delays in production up ramping, yields of the faster Ghz range, etc). Santa Rosa is supposed to ship this spring, and I want to see Apple ready to upgrade the MBP with that immediately.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9010258&pageNumber=2

Eidorian
Feb 9, 2007, 07:10 PM
To the best of my knowledge Kentsfield processors are only a little bit thicker then their Conroe counterparts. It's the same 65 nm process and die area.

I doubt we'll see Gilo for the Napa platform.

Eidorian
Feb 11, 2007, 09:27 PM
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/12592/

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37562

Rumors indicate a 1H 2007 release?

powermac_daddy
Feb 12, 2007, 07:32 PM
I don't care about the power savings because I don't think it's significant, but faster is better.

ignorant. people like you cause global warming, in another word: selfish.

Erasmus
Feb 19, 2007, 02:27 AM
ignorant. people like you cause global warming, in another word: selfish.

Do you realise that just by sitting down and continuing to live you are generating over 100W of heat? Where does that energy come from? Plants, one way or another. Dead plants mean less chlorophyll to soak up carbon dioxide. So we are all contributing to global warming, and a lot more than the power savings Penryn will bring.

Do you really think that even a decked out Mac Pro would generate more heat and waste as much energy in a typical day's use than your standard person? How about the energy wasted when you run to catch the bus, or even the raised body temperature when you're watching a particularly exciting movie or sport? <Insert rigorous use of large amounts of energy in daily life here>

What's my point? Any completely unselfish person would kill themselves immediately.

Now how to do it? Jump off a cliff? Uses too much energy to climb it. Feed ourselves to random hungry carnivore? Encourages the continuing existence of a different energy wasting vessel. Shoot ourselves? Too much energy used making the neccessary parts. Etc.

What's my actual point? Energy usage is a normal part of life, and any power savings moving from Merom to Penryn are completely insignificant. There is only a problem because of the method of getting that power. There would be no issue if this was from solar, wind, tidal, nuclear fission/fusion etc. Deal with it, and don't waste your energy attacking the product rather than the source.

Macinposh
Feb 19, 2007, 08:18 AM
Energy usage is a normal part of life.Deal with it.



YEAH! Thats the spirit,my man!!


I think I am gonna go to my Hummer, drive the 300m to the Radioshack in heavy traffic,and go turn on some televisions.

After that´ll drive around for a while,search for that Al Gore hippy so I could stone and mock him,then drive slowly back home,fire up some electric heaters just for the fkuck of it. You know, just to keep the hungry carnivores at bay.

Dem be spooky.

Rootman
Feb 19, 2007, 10:17 AM
Do you realise that just by sitting down and continuing to live you are generating over 100W of heat?If everybody will pledge to eat two 50-watt chickens per week, we can beat this thing. The eight-piece family bucket at KFC will do the trick.

Erasmus
Feb 19, 2007, 05:33 PM
OK, I may have gone a tad over the top, BUT the point is...

Normal, or even abnormally large energy usage, does not damage the environment in any noticable way.

Some methods of power generation damage the environment and screw us over. This is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to how much energy we use.

So would we be having this argument if we were all using solar/wind/nuclear power? No. It would not matter how much energy we used, because energy generation would not impact on the environment.

So you can happily drive your Hummer as long as it runs on Hydrogen, and turn on as many televisions and electric heaters as you want, as long as the juice they use is generated from environmentally friendly sources.

If you want to throw stones at Al Gore, if that's how you feel, I guess I won't be able to stop you. Although somewhat less effective, a simple rally and march is far less illegal.

Good idea about the chickens man.

So... In conclusion, stop complaining about power wasting computer chips, and start complaining to the government about coal, oil and gas burning power stations.

SMM
Feb 19, 2007, 06:43 PM
I'm not sure it's the physical 45nm design but the new materials they're using in creating the chips. The way they've manufactured the stuff could mean advances once thought impossible will now come easily.

A few years back, I was channel surfing and found an engineering forum on advanced materials. One of the longer topics dealt with semi-conductor materials and where the major breakthroughs would come from. Of particular interest was a dissertation of what lay ahead of us when we could actual manufacture in outer space. Many of the panel chimed in with examples of how metallurgy was going to completely change when we can mix alloys in a pure vacuum, with zero gravitational restraint and completely void of contaminates. Rumor has it that much experimental work is currently being done at the space station. There, engineers can do experimental work, which is cost prohibitive on 'big blue'.

Eidorian
Feb 22, 2007, 05:42 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37775

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6185

Erasmus
Feb 22, 2007, 07:08 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37775

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6185

Great stuff. But...

We're still waiting for Clovertown in the Mac Pro. The pessimist in me thinks we might find we are waiting until WWDC2008 to get 45nm Mac Pros. The optimist says this opens the way for Apple to release 45nm iMacs and Macbook/pros at MWSF2008.

Still think Leopard, Santa Rosa and new 8-core, R600XTX Mac Pros at WWDC2007 in June.

Eidorian
Feb 22, 2007, 07:24 PM
Great stuff. But...

We're still waiting for Clovertown in the Mac Pro. The pessimist in me thinks we might find we are waiting until WWDC2008 to get 45nm Mac Pros. The optimist says this opens the way for Apple to release 45nm iMacs and Macbook/pros at MWSF2008.

Still think Leopard, Santa Rosa and new 8-core, R600XTX Mac Pros at WWDC2007 in June.As our wonderful user Multimedia has beaten to death... Stoakley-Seaburg (http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/clovertown/index.x?pg=1) is probably what's holding the Mac Pro's update back. I'm not pessimistic to say that WWDC 2007 is the next Mac Pro update.

With the next update I expect a DirectX 10 compatible video card for the Mac Pro (even if OS X doesn't do DirectX). My money is on NVIDIA over ATi. ATi has pushed back their release until May but it's possible to see an update then.

I also expect all mobile chipset based Apple computers to see an update when the Santa Rosa platform comes out. Penryn at MWSF 2008.

tristan
Feb 22, 2007, 07:40 PM
So later this year I'll be:

1. Buying a new Apple laptop.
2. Dancing on AMD's grave.

Eidorian
Feb 22, 2007, 07:42 PM
So later this year I'll be:

1. Buying a new Apple laptop.
2. Dancing on AMD's grave.I don't know but AMD's Barcelona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K8L) looks interesting. Now if they can make the price competitive to Core 2. Core 2 still has a lot of room to be clocked up at stock TDP's.

Sped
Feb 23, 2007, 08:49 AM
If everybody will pledge to eat two 50-watt chickens per week, we can beat this thing. The eight-piece family bucket at KFC will do the trick.

That is the funniest thing I've read on this forum ever!

ffakr
Feb 23, 2007, 12:05 PM
OK, I may have gone a tad over the top, BUT the point is...

Normal, or even abnormally large energy usage, does not damage the environment in any noticable way.

A Tad? When's the last time you generated Carbon MONOXIDE or Sulfur Dioxide because you had a coal-fire power plant providing your body heat.
Metabolic processes are VASTLY different than industrial power. This might surprise you but burning sulfurous coal or nuclear fusion is not part of the natural carbon cycle.

Thermal output has NOTHING do do with the topic of responsible energy usage. The problem is wasted thermal output that is the end product of electricity. When I spend 18 hours converting video on a CPU that wastes 80W vs. 30 minutes on a new cpu that consumes 65W.. I'm saving a lot of ELECTRICTY. Where does that come from? It comes from nuclear, natural gas, or (near me) coal fire power plants.

The issue isn't about 1 cpu either. It's about a million cpus. If we saved 20W on 1 Million computers, that's a power reduction of 20 GigaWatts. Think of it this way, I've got 115 AC service rated to 100Amps at my breaker box. My house, at the absolute most, could pull 11,500W off the grid though useage is probably closer to 200-1000W at any given time depending on what's running [tv, lights, fridge, stove..]
The environmental point with chip thermals is big picture. If I consume 1000W for my household.. simply using a slightly more efficient processor in 1 Million computers would essentially take 20,000 house holds off the power grid.

Erasmus
Feb 25, 2007, 04:06 AM
A Tad? When's the last time you generated Carbon MONOXIDE or Sulfur Dioxide because you had a coal-fire power plant providing your body heat.
Metabolic processes are VASTLY different than industrial power. This might surprise you but burning sulfurous coal or nuclear fusion is not part of the natural carbon cycle.

Thermal output has NOTHING do do with the topic of responsible energy usage. The problem is wasted thermal output that is the end product of electricity. When I spend 18 hours converting video on a CPU that wastes 80W vs. 30 minutes on a new cpu that consumes 65W.. I'm saving a lot of ELECTRICTY. Where does that come from? It comes from nuclear, natural gas, or (near me) coal fire power plants.

The issue isn't about 1 cpu either. It's about a million cpus. If we saved 20W on 1 Million computers, that's a power reduction of 20 GigaWatts. Think of it this way, I've got 115 AC service rated to 100Amps at my breaker box. My house, at the absolute most, could pull 11,500W off the grid though useage is probably closer to 200-1000W at any given time depending on what's running [tv, lights, fridge, stove..]
The environmental point with chip thermals is big picture. If I consume 1000W for my household.. simply using a slightly more efficient processor in 1 Million computers would essentially take 20,000 house holds off the power grid.

(screams)

stop worrying about ENERGY USAGE and focus on HOW it is GENERATED please read my post before commenting otherwise you are likely to make a FOOL of yourself.

It seems you have taken some of the things I have argued for in my posts, taken what others have said, and twisted them into a wierd hybrid argument that is somehow intended to destroy my argument, along with berating me about things I didn't say.

Now that's done,

Energy from nuclear power, wind, solar, etc. does not exacerbate the greenhouse effect. Yes, it is not part of the natural carbon cycle. I can't think of any good similes, but of course they aren't part of the natural carbon cycle, because they have nothing to do with any kind of carbon cycle.

Raw heat does not affect the overall temperature of the earth. This is what I meant about large energy usages not damaging the environment. The Earth is a big place, with a large surface area. Heat is dissipated quickly. Global warming is directly related to generation of carbon, and has absolutely nothing to do with waste heat.

Any notion that energy usage in itself is bad is ill advised. Energy can be harvested from many sources that have negligable environmental impact.

If I run a total of a megawatt of computer equipment off nuclear or solar power, I will still have next to zero effect on the environment. If EVERYONE in the world wasted a few tens of kilowatts each, or most likely much more, using nothing but green power, global warming would decrease, because carbon dioxide wouldn't be being produced.

The concept, or even slightest suggestion, that any type of nuclear power, ESPECIALLY fusion, generates carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide or carbon dioxide is absurd.




Energy usage is not bad. It is where the energy comes from that is the problem, and it wouldn't be a problem if we used nuclear power, solar power, wind power, tidal power, etc.

bigwig
Feb 25, 2007, 02:35 PM
I've been saying it for 20 years. I'm posting this with a 1987 Amiga 500. (seriously!)
The Amiga was so cool for its day. I so wanted to upgrade from my C-64, but by the time I could afford it Commodore had already imploded.

FFTT
Feb 27, 2007, 04:23 AM
I agree,

2008 will bring quite a few Crazy 8's!

8 Cores, Logic 8, ProTools 8 and a full 8 hours notebook battery life etc.
(hopefully sooner), but should be in full swing for 2008.

This was also my plan when I purchased my 2.0 DP G5 (8DIMM)




Man, this whole "wait till '08" philosophy of mine is really paying off. I'll get a second revision Penryn/Santa Rosa MacBook with all the goodies.

Gonna destrrooooyyyy my iBook's performance in one fell swoop. Amazing just how good the progress from Intel is - remember the good ol' days of "OMG, 100MHz faster G4s coming soon" rumours.

Now we know what's coming and roughly when and we know the benefits of the new chips are going to make them worth the upgrade price. Even going from a 1.2GHz G4 to a 1.67GHz G4 isn't all that much but going from a 1.2GHz G4 to a 2+ GHz Penryn-based Core 2 Duo for basically the same price as I paid for this iBook is simply amazing.

CJD2112
Apr 16, 2007, 05:50 AM
Personally, I like the idea of fuel cells (hydrogen fuel cells... For some reason Americans sometimes call fuel tanks fuel cells, but whatever), but on an unrelated track, hydrogen comes from either fossil fuels, or electricity, which comes from fossil fuels. No win. The reason I like hydrogen fuel cells is I like Hydrogen, because it can be made from water, and it can be used for nuclear fusion. Electricity turns water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, Hydrogen fuses into Helium or other Hydrogen isotopes, makes electricity. Water goes in, electricity, Helium and Oxygen comes out, with enough spare hydrogen to start a hydrogen fuel business on the side. No risk of Chernobyl style "Nuclear Meltdown", not that modern fission reactors are dangerous anyway. Environment wins, we win, everyone wins, except petroleum companies, but who gives a stuff about them? But everyone today hears the word Nuclear and frieks out. Totally unfair.

The main reason why fuel cells aren't used today is they have a terrible power to weight ratio. Hydrogen being a gas makes it almost impossible to store in anything but an extremely heavy pressure vessel. This is why Hydrogen will NOT be used in commercial passenger jets for a very very long time. Similarly it is expensive to originally purchase. In theory it is good for the environment, but no-one will buy it because it's just not practical. Like Nuclear fusion, the technology is not yet here to make it work. When it is, it will be awesome.

It is similar with computers. Materials are used because they do the job the best, with credit to affordability. Until there are materials that do the job better than the materials we use today that are also good for the environment, we are stuck with heavy metals and plastics. I might add also that Apple doesn't sell CRT screens, but I'm sure you alredy know that (well at least to my knowledge).

Now I've forgotten almost everything you have said, and am struggling to link random rants together into a proper argument, because I think I got a bit carried away.

Basically, computer manufcturers use what is available to them to make the best product they can. I find it unlikely that an "environmentally friendly" computer would even work. The best thing we can do as a community is to keep up efforts in improving recycling techniques, and eliminating any dangerous chemicals from products that don't have to be there, or can be phased out for something else. CFC's are a good example of this. It seems likely in the future that carbon compounds such as nanotubes will not only replace many more hazardous substances used today, but will perform far better at their intended role than the old material.

So yeah. I congratulate anyone who actually reads all of this way too long and tedious post.

Oh Erasmus, you're arguing over symantecs, yet again :rolleyes: . If Hydrogen Fuel Cell isn't a practical, viable option then why is Honda test marketing Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles developed with solar-panel hydrogen harnessed from H20 in California? Why are Military owned GM Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles running in upstate NY thanks to the efforts of Senator Hillary Clinton and others? When it comes down to it, research and development into alternative energy sources coupled with the desire, the actual desire, of the general public to want change to avoid global catastrophe is the only way we'll get off oil and the 100 year old combustible engine. Hydrogen CAN be hanressed from the environment without taxing other power sources, and utilizing solar power (recent strides in solar power panel's that harness more energy per square inch have been recently developed demonstrating the capacity for future application AND the huge market that has yet to be tapped into, if only more money was spent on more research and development), and hydrogen can be compressed and stored safely for automotive travel yielding 400 miles per tank in recent tests, producing nothing but drinkable water. Also, as hyrdogen fuel cells utilize less moving parts, automobiles can run faster and longer on hydrogen then fossil fuels. It's sad to think of the huge efforts and strides that have been made in the personal computing industry and microprocessors while the human race is still using the same technology (minus the subtle improvements, I know how you love to jump on minor details) that was developed by Henry Ford and his ilk over 100 years ago. Money talks and currently oil has the floor...

My original point was that we seem to be more concerned about speed and power in processors rather than energy efficiency and/or alternative materials that are environmentally friendly. Similar to corporate America's obssession with faster muscle cars (which obviously burn more fossil fuels but keep the oil and automotive industry very happy), and less focus on the already PRESENT alternative sources of energy and their application. Apple is currently selling Quad core and Octo core Mac Pros (yes, for professionals but even the average professional photographer doesn't need eight core systems, that's exteme). This marketing desire to make consumers more speed conscious is ludicrous when what we SHOULD be focusing more on is the same issue that is perplexing the automotive industry, alternative materials and energy efficiency. Not a difficult concept to grasp and certainly not one that is arguable...

Now, about your nit-picking of energy consumption. Who cares about symantecs when we all seem to be on the same page that using a computer (no matter what level of efficiency) wastes the energy that is being produced? :confused: We are such arrogant creatures to believe that arguing over energy consumption on some pointless mac blog is crucial in wasting energy and polluting, cause in the end mass quantities of individuals doing something "innocent" as such is what is the problem at hand. Arrogance and ignorance WILL be and ARE the downfall of the human species. In the end, who cares about what processor went into which system, Mother Nature only needs to flick us off her planet for the disrespect and discourtesy we have shown...

...and for the record, Nuclear Energy???? You on crack again, Whitney? lol Bush was laughed out of the Kyoto Conference for his proposal to build more nuclear power plants. Why? It produces more waste. Oh, I forgot, you don't mind e-waste; wires, silicon, circuit boards, etc all filling up our landfills and producing glorious amounts of awesome drinkable water and farmland, right? :rolleyes:

Eidorian
Apr 16, 2007, 03:42 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5372

http://www.powerpage.org/2007/04/intel_lays_out_penryn_and_quadcore_mobile_chip_details.html

Butthead
Apr 16, 2007, 05:52 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5372

http://www.powerpage.org/2007/04/intel_lays_out_penryn_and_quadcore_mobile_chip_details.html


Quadcore a bit off in the future, too soon to say whether or not it would be used in an Apple Laptop, what the design parameters might be?

Other links today, Intel notes:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/16/HNintelbeyondsantarosa_1.html

Penryn an drop in replacment for Santa Rosa based systems to be released May, woot; this means an updated 2k res. MBP 17in before WWDC, maybe?

"Santa Rosa -- which Eden described as "Core 2 Duo on steroids" -- hits store shelves in May...For this market, Intel is preparing a mobile chip for gamers that allows overclocking...The chip is unlikely to find its way into most notebooks for some time.

"You'll see it at the high-end, but I don't see it running so fast into the mainstream because I don't believe there will be enough threaded applications that will justify the tradeoffs," Eden said.".

So why wait for Penryn in late 2007 (though if they're showing a prototype running on this chip now, one wonders if they are ahead of schedule???), just buy the Santa Rosa update now, drop in a Penryn later...overclocking too?

Intel says they will hit the store shelves in MAY! So will Apple release the updated Santa Rosa MBP's in May also???

Rocketman
Apr 16, 2007, 06:25 PM
Here's a map:

http://img.hexus.net/v2/internationalevents/idf2007/idf_large_21.jpg

And in an I told you so moment, "Intel will release an add-in WiMAX card, Dana Point, early next year and launch a combo card with WiFi and WiMAX, dubbed Echo Peak, with Centrino Montevina - the next refresh."

Rocketman

I wish MM would fixate on "Echo Peak" which presumes Santa Rosa.

jhtrico1850
Apr 16, 2007, 08:41 PM
We're still waiting for Clovertown in the Mac Pro.

You just got Clovertown (65nm). Unless you mean the server 45nm DP quads, Harpertown.
---
..Stoakley-Seaburg..

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38961
---
So why wait for Penryn in late 2007 (though if they're showing a prototype running on this chip now, one wonders if they are ahead of schedule???), just buy the Santa Rosa update now, drop in a Penryn later...overclocking too?

Intel says they will hit the store shelves in MAY! So will Apple release the updated Santa Rosa MBP's in May also???

Um. What?

Eidorian
Apr 17, 2007, 12:53 AM
You just got Clovertown (65nm). Unless you mean the server 45nm DP quads, Harpertown.
---


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38961
---


Um. What?http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38959