PDA

View Full Version : Next Generation Intel Platform (Santa Rosa) Tracking For May




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Feb 25, 2007, 10:38 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TG Daily reports that Intel's next generation mobile platform, code-named Santa Rosa, is currently tracking for a May release (http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/02/23/intel_crestline_graphics/).

The platform will feature many improvements over today's incarnation found in the iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro. While the processor will remain of the Core 2 Duo "Merom" variety and will top out at 2.4 GHz, the front side bus speed will be increased to 800 MHz.

Also, systems that use integrated graphics (MacBook, Mac Mini) will stand to see a big boost from Intel's latest graphics technology. The GMA X3000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3000) will implement several important graphics features in hardware and support pixel and vertex shader models 3.0, whereas GMA 950 only supports pixel shader model 2.0. This improvement will no doubt be a boost for casual gamers and for Apple's desire to include even more impressive visual effects in their systems.

Lastly, Santa Rosa will feature Intel's flash caching technology, code-named Robson. The technology should bring better system performance, especially in the areas of battery life, system startup, and access of frequently used applications.



P-Worm
Feb 25, 2007, 10:42 AM
I think the part I find most interesting is that the mac mini and macbook are getting Pixel shader model 3.0. Hopefully we can start getting some games for the Mac platform.

P-Worm

thejadedmonkey
Feb 25, 2007, 10:47 AM
Yep, I'll be getting a MacBook with an x3000 and Leopard this may, can't wait!:D

Mydel
Feb 25, 2007, 10:48 AM
So there are decent chances we will see updated MBP by the end of June. Cool!! I cant wait to get new one:D

Ultimatetone
Feb 25, 2007, 10:50 AM
...Santa Rosa will feature Intel's flash caching technology, code-named Robson.

The technology should bring better system performance,
especially in the areas of battery life, system startup, and access of frequently used applications.

FINALLY -

This is what I have been waiting for from INTEL!

Hey Steve (J) - You're on top of this, right?


Ultimatetone

phillipjfry
Feb 25, 2007, 10:50 AM
Figures, I decide to order an iMac and they go and update the chips :)
At least the mini is getting an update. My gf will love to hear that!

mkrishnan
Feb 25, 2007, 10:51 AM
I think the part I find most interesting is that the mac mini and macbook are getting Pixel shader model 3.0. Hopefully we can start getting some games for the Mac platform.

Sounds like possibly also DirectX 10 in Vista, should people be so inclined. Hopefully we'll see this roll out quickly to the MacBook and Mini, alongside a C2D update in the Mini.

For the others, it does still sounds like this will mean a small bump in speed by virtue of the FSB and so on. I wonder if any of them will allow for simultaneous use of both their ATI/etc graphics chipset and their Intel one, as some of the Windows computers do?

Also, I wonder if Apple still plans to not use Robson caching?

mikeinternet
Feb 25, 2007, 10:52 AM
now we just need apple to stay right up to speed with intel.

Vidd
Feb 25, 2007, 10:52 AM
This is exactly what I'm waiting for along with Leopard.
I'm wondering though based on the very low upgrade to Merom, how quickly Apple will put Santa Rosa into its lower end laptops.

BigPrince
Feb 25, 2007, 10:58 AM
I'm waiting too.

Samwise592
Feb 25, 2007, 10:59 AM
I'm hoping very soon, as that's what I'm waiting for before i buy a MacBook.

thejadedmonkey
Feb 25, 2007, 11:01 AM
This is exactly what I'm waiting for along with Leopard.
I'm wondering though based on the very low upgrade to Merom, how quickly Apple will put Santa Rosa into its lower end laptops.

Hopefully soon. All the bad PR Apple gets about the MacBook is a lack of a read GPU. The x3000 (while not nVidia or ATI) is such a huge step up that it would stop most of the bitching people do, solving the PR problem. I think it'll happen fast.

And it'll give the MBP a longer battery life, so it'll probably happen there fast too!

I'm hoping very soon, as that's what I'm waiting for before i buy a MacBook.
Me too

Grimace
Feb 25, 2007, 11:02 AM
Right, but Apple rarely has the latest and greatest available immediately. I'd say we'll have a month or two of "Where is my Santa Rosa machine?" threads. :rolleyes:

Turkish
Feb 25, 2007, 11:04 AM
.7 MHz?

Wow.

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 11:04 AM
Yes, really... (http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom)

nsbio
Feb 25, 2007, 11:05 AM
Right, but Apple rarely has the latest and greatest available immediately. I'd say we'll have a month or two of "Where is my Santa Rosa machine?" threads. :rolleyes:

Maybe I am wrong (so do not throw too much flak at me then), but wasn't :apple: one of the first to implement C2D chip in a laptop?

Mydel
Feb 25, 2007, 11:06 AM
Maybe I am wrong (so do not throw too much flak at me then), but wasn't :apple: one of the first to implement C2D chip in a laptop?

You wrong :p

nsbio
Feb 25, 2007, 11:09 AM
You wrong :p

Oh my! I guess I'd have to get myself drunk now, just to drown my blues :p

colinmack
Feb 25, 2007, 11:10 AM
Personally, I'm more keen about the fact that the X3000 supports dual independent displays.

brucku
Feb 25, 2007, 11:10 AM
Figures, I decide to order an iMac and they go and update the chips :)
At least the mini is getting an update. My gf will love to hear that!

While this is great news, it's the "on track for May" that's new. This chip has been talked about for a few months now.

Swarmlord
Feb 25, 2007, 11:11 AM
This is exactly what I'm waiting for along with Leopard.
I'm wondering though based on the very low upgrade to Merom, how quickly Apple will put Santa Rosa into its lower end laptops.

Yup. Me too. I figured there was some hardware upgrade in the works that would release in conjunction with Leopard and it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen.

Vidd
Feb 25, 2007, 11:12 AM
Personally, I'm more keen about the fact that the X3000 supports dual independent displays.

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean?

Rocketman
Feb 25, 2007, 11:12 AM
Isn't one of the several benefits the ability to address more than 3.0GB of memory? And a "true" 64 bit bus rather than parts 64 and parts 32?

Rocketman

Umbongo
Feb 25, 2007, 11:19 AM
Right, but Apple rarely has the latest and greatest available immediately. I'd say we'll have a month or two of "Where is my Santa Rosa machine?" threads. :rolleyes:

Being that in all likely hood Apple's whole line except the Mac Pro will be based on this platform, I'd expect a reasonably quick rollout. Apple will have been working with this for a while developing the next line of products.

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 11:20 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean?It'll support two monitors outside of the onboard LCD.

Isn't one of the several benefits the ability to address more than 3.0GB of memory? And a "true" 64 bit bus rather than parts 64 and parts 32?

RocketmanCorrect. It'll be a pain with only two memory sockets though.

Being that in all likely hood Apple's whole line except the Mac Pro will be based on this platform, I'd expect a reasonably quick rollout. Apple will have been working with this for a while developing the next line of products.The 965 (Santa Rosa) is the latest update over the current 945 (Napa) platform. Everything but the Mac Pro uses 945 right now. So expect all the lines to be upgraded to the Santa Rosa platform except the Mac Pro.

That is unless Apple makes some changes to the other lines...

Being that in all likely hood Apple's whole line except the Mac Pro will be based on this platform, I'd expect a reasonably quick rollout. Apple will have been working with this for a while developing the next line of products.

I'm very interested in this new integrated graphics chip. I don't really understand the pixel shader lingo, could anyone describe in real-world use, how this is better than the old Intel Integrated Graphics?No more running 3D games in software emulation mode for transform and lighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%26L). In essence it makes the Intel integrated graphics card much more like REAL video cards have been since 2001.

Mavimao
Feb 25, 2007, 11:20 AM
I'm very interested in this new integrated graphics chip. I don't really understand the pixel shader lingo, could anyone describe in real-world use, how this is better than the old Intel Integrated Graphics?

Umbongo
Feb 25, 2007, 11:21 AM
Isn't one of the several benefits the ability to address more than 3.0GB of memory? And a "true" 64 bit bus rather than parts 64 and parts 32?

Rocketman

Yes, but it's only going to be useful for a minor part of the notebook market due to the cost of 2GB SO-DIMMS.

acearchie
Feb 25, 2007, 11:22 AM
Sorry to make everyone else a little angry or just annoyed about my small knowledge of chips but becuase it comes out in may does that mean apple wont be ablet on get its hands on it until may? surely there going to need months of research etc... surely a release of a comp with it would be better later this year not may?

Sorry for the incompetence!

chabig
Feb 25, 2007, 11:24 AM
It'll support two monitors outside of the onboard LCD.

You mean it will support three independent displays? I don't take that meaning out of the words "dual independent".

colinmack
Feb 25, 2007, 11:25 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean?

In theory, it means (assuming that I'm interpreting the specs properly) that something like the Mac Mini could support dual displays using the onboard graphics...presumably depends entirely on the implementation, but at least it's possible.

(...I may be in the minority, but I'd love a dual-display-capable Mini)

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 11:27 AM
You mean it will support three independent displays? I don't take that meaning out of the words "dual independent".For a desktop it means it can support dual displays. It'd make sense for the Mac mini being capable of dual external displays.

I'm still guessing on what it means for a laptop. Then again I have seen certain Dell machines with VGA and DVI outputs using the GMA950.

gutefahrt
Feb 25, 2007, 11:31 AM
I've been holding out for flash for startup and battery life. A Macbook and mini will replace my G3 iBook and G4 iMac this year. Hurry up, Steve. I wanna give you some money.

Rocketman
Feb 25, 2007, 11:34 AM
From the first link in the news blurb it states the graphics engine will support DirectX version 10 which is good for folks who care about wintel world CAD and games and such. So if Macs will have this as a baseline capacity all they have to do to utilize it is virtualization, or dual-boot, or perhaps even one of the programs that run Windows apps without windows. It would be cool to run Autocad on the Mac "properly".

Also of note:

"Intel will launch four FSB800 processors in May, including the T7100 (1.8 GHz), T7300 (2.0 GHz), T7500 (2.2 GHz) and T7600 (2.4 GHz). There will also be two low-voltage versions (L7500, 1.6 GHz; L7300, 1.4 GHz) that will follow later."

I wonder of a LV L7300 could be the chip for a "tablet larger than iPhone" or if it would also use ARM chips . . .

Rocketman

Umbongo
Feb 25, 2007, 11:37 AM
Sorry to make everyone else a little angry or just annoyed about my small knowledge of chips but becuase it comes out in may does that mean apple wont be ablet on get its hands on it until may? surely there going to need months of research etc... surely a release of a comp with it would be better later this year not may?

Sorry for the incompetence!

Apple will have been working with the chipset for a while now, my post earlier about how everything but the Mac Pro uses this was meant to imply that Apple will know this chipset/platform inside out and have their ranges designed with it's features in mind.

Vidd
Feb 25, 2007, 11:37 AM
How ready are other manufacturers to put flash in for this Robson technology?
I'm not sure what the chances are of Apple doing it, really.

DTphonehome
Feb 25, 2007, 11:37 AM
Yes, but it's only going to be useful for a minor part of the notebook market due to the cost of 2GB SO-DIMMS.

I reckon in a year the cost will be less than half of what it currently it.

Alpinism
Feb 25, 2007, 11:38 AM
Expect MacPRo to be upgraded either in april during NAB(along with FCS 6 & (or) FC Extreme) or during Mac World in June.

As for Santa Rosa, dont get your hopes up for immediate May release. Expect this to come out in the Fall to get those kiddies ready for the upcoming Fall school semester.

akadmon
Feb 25, 2007, 11:39 AM
Right, but Apple rarely has the latest and greatest available immediately. I'd say we'll have a month or two of "Where is my Santa Rosa machine?" threads. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it will be late September and the incoming college freshemn will all be up in arms about not having a laptop for school! And just to spite them, Apple will refresh the MB & MBP a week after Halloween :D

daneoni
Feb 25, 2007, 11:41 AM
MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB, *insert decent upgrade from X1600*, LED display, Leopard, iLife 07.

Sounds tempting but then again i might just wait for penryn, which would be a better upgrade for current C2D owners hopefully.

Mydel
Feb 25, 2007, 11:42 AM
Expect MacPRo to be upgraded either in april during NAB(along with FCS 6 & (or) FC Extreme) or during Mac World in June.

As for Santa Rosa, dont get your hopes up for immediate May release. Expect this to come out in the Fall to get those kiddies ready for the upcoming Fall school semester.

I really think that MBP update will happen sooner than that. June latest. You maybe right in case of MM and Mini though:rolleyes:

odaiwai
Feb 25, 2007, 11:44 AM
Personally, I'm more keen about the fact that the X3000 supports dual independent displays.

I'm reading this on a Linux box with a GMA 950 which is powering two displays. The existing GMA950 is more than capable of two 1280x1024 displays, so why aren't current Mac minis capable of this?

This pisses me off. Dual displays are seen as a pro feature, but the crappiest Windows box can do that these days. Every single Nvidia/Ati card for the last few years has had at least two video outs. Why not let the Mac Mini power two displays?

Two DVI ports on a Mini, and I'll replace my G4 mini tomorrow!

Mr Mac Newbie
Feb 25, 2007, 11:47 AM
I think i may just buy my 20'' imac now in that case. If Hardware is staying the same except the processors which will now top 2.4GHZ then i am not bothered as i will upgrade the one on the mac i am getting to 2.33 anyway.

Pointless to wait 2 months just for a little difference.

hollerz
Feb 25, 2007, 11:48 AM
Isn't one of the several benefits the ability to address more than 3.0GB of memory? And a "true" 64 bit bus rather than parts 64 and parts 32?

Rocketman

So, my current C2D MBP isn't actually true 64 bit, despite what Apple has been saying?

reallynotnick
Feb 25, 2007, 11:50 AM
The updated graphics sounds great, but can someone compare the GMA950 and GMAx3000 to cards on the market from ATI or NVidia?

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 11:51 AM
I think i may just buy my 20'' imac now in that case. If Hardware is staying the same except the processors which will now top 2.4GHZ then i am not bothered as i will upgrade the one on the mac i am getting to 2.33 anyway.

Pointless to wait 2 months just for a little difference.It's a 133 MHz boost on the front side bus multiplied by the multiplier. It's not that amazing.

So, my current C2D MBP isn't actually true 64 bit, despite what Apple has been saying?It can RUN a 64-bit program. It just can't BENEFIT from being able to run a 64-bit program since you can't use more then 3 GB of RAM in the MacBook Pro.

The updated graphics sounds great, but can someone compare the GMA950 and GMAx3000 to cards on the market from ATI or NVidia?http://guides.macrumors.com/GMA_X3000

I've seen anywhere from ATi X550 to nVidia 7300 GT performance range.

I think they will update iMac in May, MacBook/MacBookPro in May/June, and Mac mini in September, with this new Santa Rosa platform. An early speedbump for Mac mini is possible in these days...All of the Apple lines are getting long toothed. I expect a new hardware launch alongside Leopard.

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

Shinjinho
Feb 25, 2007, 11:51 AM
I think they will update iMac in May, MacBook/MacBookPro in May/June, and Mac mini in September, with this new Santa Rosa platform. An early speedbump for Mac mini is possible in these days...

miketcool
Feb 25, 2007, 11:56 AM
I'm very interested in this new integrated graphics chip. I don't really understand the pixel shader lingo, could anyone describe in real-world use, how this is better than the old Intel Integrated Graphics?

GMA 950 has a 3 digit number. GMA x3000 has a killer sounding 4 digit number with the hip prefix "x". That is almost 316% better! Then you add on the prefix and another syllable, and there you have it, clearly better.

Mr Mac Newbie
Feb 25, 2007, 12:01 PM
It's a 133 MHz boost on the front side bus multiplied by the multiplier. It's not that amazing.

Cool. I'm glad to hear that. I want to buy my imac in the next week or so. To hear that hardware isn't getting much of an upgrade please's me.

It will be enough for what i want to do anyway :D

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 12:03 PM
Cool. I'm glad to hear that. I want to buy my imac in the next week or so. To hear that hardware isn't getting much of an upgrade please's me.

It will be enough for what i want to do anyway :DExpect a graphics card update though. If you're not looking to game then the current model is fine. At least get the 256 MB upgrade for the 20" model or the 7600GT on the 24" model.

I honestly expect to see an ATi Mobility X26xxx or Geforce Go 83xx/86xx card in the new models.

The processor speed difference isn't much.

Nutter
Feb 25, 2007, 12:05 PM
So, my current C2D MBP isn't actually true 64 bit, despite what Apple has been saying?

Yes, it is. To clarify what Rocketman said, Santa Rosa will allow the system to address more than 4GB of physical memory. Your C2D MBP does support 64-bit instructions and it does allow the addressing of more than 4GB of virtual memory, which are the essential ingredients of a 64-bit system.

Vidd
Feb 25, 2007, 12:13 PM
GMA 950 has a 3 digit number. GMA x3000 has a killer sounding 4 digit number with the hip prefix "x". That is almost 316% better! Then you add on the prefix and another syllable, and there you have it, clearly better.

According to Wikipedia there's also a GMA3000 so the x prefix isn't just for presentation.

QCassidy352
Feb 25, 2007, 12:15 PM
I've seen anywhere from ATi X550 to nVidia 7300 GT performance range.

wow, really? That's better than I thought. How exciting!

EagerDragon
Feb 25, 2007, 12:19 PM
All sounds perfect so far with one small exception, the LED illumination. I hope it is part of the new release.

Di9it8
Feb 25, 2007, 12:33 PM
If Apple are upping the MB, then the MBPs will need to be improved to keep the premium price. There must be some other advances yet unstated?:D

DTphonehome
Feb 25, 2007, 12:35 PM
GMA 950 has a 3 digit number. GMA x3000 has a killer sounding 4 digit number with the hip prefix "x". That is almost 316% better! Then you add on the prefix and another syllable, and there you have it, clearly better.

lol, exactly!

Mr Mac Newbie
Feb 25, 2007, 12:46 PM
Expect a graphics card update though. If you're not looking to game then the current model is fine. At least get the 256 MB upgrade for the 20" model or the 7600GT on the 24" model.

I honestly expect to see an ATi Mobility X26xxx or Geforce Go 83xx/86xx card in the new models.

The processor speed difference isn't much.

I don't intend to play games on my mac. I have an xbox 360 to do that :cool: But i was going to get 256mb GPU anyway just in case

Chris14
Feb 25, 2007, 12:49 PM
So... will this new processor be the same pin type etc as Core 2 Duo?
Would it then be possible to swap out the processor in iMacs,Minis,Macbooks etc to the new processor?

Just a thought

Toddgabweg
Feb 25, 2007, 12:52 PM
So how long to you think I will need to wait to get a new 24in imac with this new tech.????:confused:

mashinhead
Feb 25, 2007, 12:52 PM
So... will this new processor be the same pin type etc as Core 2 Duo?
Would it then be possible to swap out the processor in iMacs,Minis,Macbooks etc to the new processor?

Just a thought

that would be a negative it has a whole new board, besides the processor isn't the leap, the board and the graphics card are.

thejadedmonkey
Feb 25, 2007, 01:02 PM
So... will this new processor be the same pin type etc as Core 2 Duo?
Would it then be possible to swap out the processor in iMacs,Minis,Macbooks etc to the new processor?

Just a thought

that would be a negative it has a whole new board, besides the processor isn't the leap, the board and the graphics card are.

To take it a step farther, the CPU will be the same, just with a minor speed bump.. nothing like the Core to Core 2 switch

Rocketman
Feb 25, 2007, 01:31 PM
So how long to you think I will need to wait to get a new 24in imac with this new tech.????:confused:

One thing we DO know is the iMac will be the FIRST to get it since it is not a soldered chip motherboard and because Steve loves the iMac. The soldered chip MacBookPro is likely to take 4+ weeks longer than the iMac.

So if it (Santa Rosa + C2D next-gen) is scheduled to be released in May 2007, we could easily see a WWDC-07 iMac release with the new chips and some added wireless kit.

I for one will be looking for the iMac C2Q version to be announced. It will address the market for folks who want a mid-tower MacPro, so long as they are willing to use an external expansion mid-tower :)

Rocketman

freiheit
Feb 25, 2007, 01:33 PM
So, my current C2D MBP isn't actually true 64 bit, despite what Apple has been saying?

It is a 64-bit CPU but the memory controller on the current models only addresses 32-bit memory (ie. up to 4GB but due to some quirk of how memory is addressed it maxes at 3GB). The 64-bit memory addressing on the Santa Rosa would, in theory of course, allow a MacBook/MacBook Pro/iMac/Mac Mini to have 4GB, 8GB, 16GB ... of RAM. In theory, because you still need to have the right number of RAM slots to support that much memory.

freiheit
Feb 25, 2007, 01:34 PM
To take it a step farther, the CPU will be the same, just with a minor speed bump.. nothing like the Core to Core 2 switch

Santa Rosa is more about the chipset supporting the CPU than it is about the CPU itself. The chipset will feature 802.11n wireless, DDR2-800 memory and FSB800 (so the current 2.33GHz CPU would be able to run at 2.4GHz, etc.).

Mavimao
Feb 25, 2007, 01:40 PM
GMA 950 has a 3 digit number. GMA x3000 has a killer sounding 4 digit number with the hip prefix "x". That is almost 316% better! Then you add on the prefix and another syllable, and there you have it, clearly better.

Best quote EVAH! :D

richard4339
Feb 25, 2007, 01:51 PM
In theory, it means (assuming that I'm interpreting the specs properly) that something like the Mac Mini could support dual displays using the onboard graphics...presumably depends entirely on the implementation, but at least it's possible.

(...I may be in the minority, but I'd love a dual-display-capable Mini)

If they release a dual-monitor capable Mac Mini, then I won't be purchasing an iMac later this summer.

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 01:52 PM
So... will this new processor be the same pin type etc as Core 2 Duo?
Would it then be possible to swap out the processor in iMacs,Minis,Macbooks etc to the new processor?

Just a thoughtIt is going to use Socket P which is NOT compatible with the current Socket M (Core Duo/Core 2 Duo "Merom")

It is a 64-bit CPU but the memory controller on the current models only addresses 32-bit memory (ie. up to 4GB but due to some quirk of how memory is addressed it maxes at 3GB). The 64-bit memory addressing on the Santa Rosa would, in theory of course, allow a MacBook/MacBook Pro/iMac/Mac Mini to have 4GB, 8GB, 16GB ... of RAM. In theory, because you still need to have the right number of RAM slots to support that much memory.The 945 chipset can only address 4 GB of RAM. Once you take into account video RAM and system RAM you get a lot less then 4 GB of addressing space available for system RAM only.

Cult Follower
Feb 25, 2007, 01:58 PM
I really hope they don't make leopard's graphics reliant on this new graphics chip. I have a core duo macbook and want to run leopard without any downgrades.

risc
Feb 25, 2007, 02:07 PM
Can't wait... a lot of my friends are waiting for Santa Rosa before they switch.

mrthieme
Feb 25, 2007, 02:15 PM
Why are some assuming this means no major hardware changes? I have nothing to support it, but have been under the impression that 2007 will bring alot of changes in the mac lineup.

MrCrowbar
Feb 25, 2007, 02:17 PM
I really hope they don't make leopard's graphics reliant on this new graphics chip. I have a core duo macbook and want to run leopard without any downgrades.

Amen to that. But even the new Macbooks and Mac Minis have the sane graphics chip. Apple can't cripple the OS on those things, it would totally piss off switchers.

The Leopard Builds run fine on my Macbook (see sig). Core animation is not like OpenGL or DirectX, it's just an API that makes it easier to implement those cool transitions and animations like Expose and the contact list in iChat. And those already worked fine in Panther.

twoodcc
Feb 25, 2007, 02:20 PM
good news for Apple.....lets hope that they implement this into their lineup in may, and not 4 months afterwards

shawnce
Feb 25, 2007, 02:31 PM
(ie. up to 4GB but due to some quirk of how memory is addressed it maxes at 3GB).. It isn't a quirk but an intentional design decision that Intel made. Basically part of the 32 bit physical addressing window is utilized to provide data exchange between PCIe devices, communicate with the south bridge, communicate with integrated video (if it is used), etc. This simplifies the hardware for devices that generally don't need that much physical memory.

The amount of memory used for device IO is configurable by the hardware vendor (and OS) and Apple defaulted to grabe the upper 1 GiB for this purpose (possible less... never looked at the config registers to know exactly).

shawnce
Feb 25, 2007, 02:32 PM
The 945 chipset can only address 4 GB of RAM. Once you take into account video RAM and system RAM you get a lot less then 4 GB of addressing space available for system RAM only. This is mischaracterization of why Apple's 945 based systems can only address 3 GiB (different vendors can have different limits for this). It isn't that the physical RAM is set aside it is that the address space is used to map device IO.

Lumeswell
Feb 25, 2007, 02:40 PM
If they release a dual-monitor capable Mac Mini, then I won't be purchasing an iMac later this summer.

And there you have it - exactly why Apple wont release a Mini capable of driving dual monitors. :mad:

Pooldraft
Feb 25, 2007, 02:47 PM
I hope this means that a mini can now support HD drives with the new GPU. Lame ass integrated graphics kill the mac mini in terms of home theater. When I say HD I mean real HD not that wannabee crap(720p) but FULL 1080P. We shall see. **** iTV.

slffl
Feb 25, 2007, 03:13 PM
Holy cow, this summer is going to break the bank.

Vidd
Feb 25, 2007, 03:15 PM
I really hope they don't make leopard's graphics reliant on this new graphics chip. I have a core duo macbook and want to run leopard without any downgrades.

They aren't going to alienate the thousands who have either the CD Macbooks or anything with a weaker card (every Mac Mini for example).

slffl
Feb 25, 2007, 03:17 PM
I hope this means that a mini can now support HD drives with the new GPU. Lame ass integrated graphics kill the mac mini in terms of home theater. When I say HD I mean real HD not that wannabee crap(720p) but FULL 1080P. We shall see. **** iTV.

What does this mean? That a Xbox 360 HD drive won't work on the mac mini in windows because of the mini's GPU?

I borrowed a mini and had it playing all kinds of 1080p content, but never got around to hooking up the 360 HD player.

thisonechance
Feb 25, 2007, 03:22 PM
Good news as I am in the market for a macbook. My only hope is that they will be in the macbooks by mid June. Foolish thinking perhaps, but I have my hopes.

Phtosynthesis
Feb 25, 2007, 03:23 PM
I'm waiting until the Santa Rosa Macbooks are released to get a new computer. I'm not big on getting the first run of new products, so how long do you think I should wait until the new Macbooks release to get one?

Latino
Feb 25, 2007, 03:24 PM
It's a 133 MHz boost on the front side bus multiplied by the multiplier. It's not that amazing.

It can RUN a 64-bit program. It just can't BENEFIT from being able to run a 64-bit program since you can't use more then 3 GB of RAM in the MacBook Pro.



That's not strictly true. It gets the benefit of being able to run a 64-bit program under a 64-bit platform. The system, however, is incapable of utilizing more than 3GB of RAM, and overcoming the 4GB max RAM limit imposed by 32bit platforms is the most obvious advantage of 64bits to the ordinary users

A 32bit platform can easily deal with numbers represented by 32 bits, i.e., integers from -2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647. This is known as an Integer in most programming languages, or a Word in computer science speak. For most of us, dealing with numbers in that range is more than enough.

However, some problems or application domains, need a larger range of numbers. These are mostly found in scientific fields. This is when you would need to use 64bit integers, with which you can represent integers from -(2 to the power of 63) to (2 to the power of 63). These are very large numbers indeed. They are known as a Long or a double Word

The same reasoning applies to floating point numbers, but they tend to be known as Floats (32bit) or Doubles (64bit). And in my experience, I've noticed that it's more common to use 64bit floating point numbers than it is to use 64bit Integers. Although that may be arguable.

A 32 bit platform can still handle 64bit numbers, but they effectively split the number into the lower 32 bits and the upper 32 bits, and perform the required calculations. This takes many more processing cycles than a 64 bit platform would, and hence, you'd get a speedup by using a 64bit environment

So, to sum up, you still have a 64bit capable computer, and you certainly CAN benefit from running a 64bit program on it. It's just not very likely, at least in the near future, that anything you (or me) do with such computer at home will benefit from its 64bit abilities :)

Now, where is that new MPB? me want! time to retire my ageing Sawtooth G4

mmccaskill
Feb 25, 2007, 03:34 PM
I just got my MB in Jan because I suspect that the MB Santa Rosa upgrades wouldn't happen until at least May. Hope my suspicions are proven true.

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 03:35 PM
That's not strictly true. It gets the benefit of being able to run a 64-bit program under a 64-bit platform. The system, however, is incapable of utilizing more than 3GB of RAM, and overcoming the 4GB max RAM limit imposed by 32bit platforms is the most obvious advantage of 64bits to the ordinary users

A 32bit platform can easily deal with numbers represented by 32 bits, i.e., integers from -2,147,483,648 to +2,147,483,647. This is known as an Integer in most programming languages, or a Word in computer science speak. For most of us, dealing with numbers in that range is more than enough.

However, some problems or application domains, need a larger range of numbers. These are mostly found in scientific fields. This is when you would need to use 64bit integers, with which you can represent integers from -(2 to the power of 63) to (2 to the power of 63). These are very large numbers indeed. They are known as a Long or a double Word

The same reasoning applies to floating point numbers, but they tend to be known as Floats (32bit) or Doubles (64bit). And in my experience, I've noticed that it's more common to use 64bit floating point numbers than it is to use 64bit Integers. Although that may be arguable.

A 32 bit platform can still handle 64bit numbers, but they effectively split the number into the lower 32 bits and the upper 32 bits, and perform the required calculations. This takes many more processing cycles than a 64 bit platform would, and hence, you'd get a speedup by using a 64bit environment

So, to sum up, you still have a 64bit capable computer, and you certainly CAN benefit from running a 64bit program on it. It's just not very likely, at least in the near future, that anything you (or me) do with such computer at home will benefit from its 64bit abilities :)

Now, where is that new MPB? me want! time to retire my ageing Sawtooth G41. I did mention that you can run 64-bit programs. You just can't use the addressing over 4 GB with the current i945 chipset.

2. Scientific programs mostly benefit since you can address data to memory Vs. using virtual memory.

3. 64-bit addressing is only called as necessary if you code the program correctly it'll stick with 32-bit. Apple addressed this at WWDC2006. It was a good session. :D

Joe The Dragon
Feb 25, 2007, 03:47 PM
Hopefully soon. All the bad PR Apple gets about the MacBook is a lack of a read GPU. The x3000 (while not nVidia or ATI) is such a huge step up that it would stop most of the bitching people do, solving the PR problem. I think it'll happen fast.

Me too
Not that much as it still uses system ram and the x3000
can use more the gma950 did. Apple need to use the ati and nvidia cards that some of there own and get the rest from system ram

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2007, 03:49 PM
Also, systems that use integrated graphics (MacBook, Mac Mini) will stand to see a big boost from Intel's latest graphics technology. The GMA X3000 will implement several important graphics features in hardware and support pixel and vertex shader models 3.0, whereas GMA 950 only supports pixel shader model 2.0. This improvement will no doubt be a boost for casual gamers and for Apple's desire to include even more impressive visual effects in their systems.

Lastly, Santa Rosa will feature Intel's flash caching technology, code-named Robson. The technology should bring better system performance, especially in the areas of battery life, system startup, and access of frequently used applications.

The graphics bump is no doubt in response to Directx 10 which none of Intel's wares currently support. Ditto with the flash caching tech. However unlike having the tech built into windows it sounds as if the feature will be managed at a much lower level on SR.

Rocketman
Feb 25, 2007, 04:13 PM
I seem to have my ear to above average ground and many of my "predictions" have been pretty close.

So here we go . . . . .

iTV 3-07
iPhone 6-07

iMac Santa Rosa 6-07
Mac-Mini C2D 6-07
MacBook Pro Santa Rosa late 7-07
MacBook Santa Rosa 9-07
iMac C2Q late 7-07 dieshrink version

MacPro Octo announced at NAB, shipping 7-07
MPO bundles:
Adobe CS3
FC Extreme
Logic Extreme / Audoi apps

Leopard 10.5.0 May 1 and 10.5.1 delivered at WWDC-07 in time to be installed on most "new" Macs.

There. Anything "sooner" is a win. Anything missing entirely or more than 2 months later is a loss. I am shooting for a 70% record. Buy Apple stock.

Rocketman

Vidd
Feb 25, 2007, 04:27 PM
I cannot wait until September for a new Macbook! :(

ksz
Feb 25, 2007, 04:44 PM
Holy cow, this summer is going to break the bank.
Most indubitably.

SeaFox
Feb 25, 2007, 04:53 PM
Yeah, it will be late September and the incoming college freshemn will all be up in arms about not having a laptop for school! And just to spite them, Apple will refresh the MB & MBP a week after Halloween :D
That's actually what happens every year. The back to school free iPod Nano and cheap printer promotion comes out and there's usually a laptop refresh a few days after the end of the promo. Apple uses it as a way to clear out the old inventory.

Lancetx
Feb 25, 2007, 04:54 PM
As for Santa Rosa, dont get your hopes up for immediate May release. Expect this to come out in the Fall to get those kiddies ready for the upcoming Fall school semester.

I agree with you for the most part. I think it'll be June or July when the MB Pro and iMac go to Santa Rosa, while the MB and Mac mini will follow most likely in September. So as of today we're still at least a good 4-6 months away from seeing anything actually available to buy.

reallynotnick
Feb 25, 2007, 05:02 PM
Looking at most of your guys predictions for the Mini, being so late in the year it will either be dead by then or at least get a Core 2 in it.

The Mini most badly needs an update out of all the systems. Personally I would like to see it grow into a Mini tower with a replaceable graphics card. I would totally kill for one of those.

4np
Feb 25, 2007, 05:15 PM
Right, but Apple rarely has the latest and greatest available immediately. I'd say we'll have a month or two of "Where is my Santa Rosa machine?" threads. :rolleyes:

Yes I guess so. So probably revised MacBook Pro's will arrive in june. Good thing because I want one and I have -among others- been waiting for Santa Rosa :)

Cult Follower
Feb 25, 2007, 05:21 PM
This is really exciting, macs are moving along a lot faster after the intel switch.

sluthy
Feb 25, 2007, 05:23 PM
Great, I was looking at a laptop as a graduation present in February, I couldn't pick between MBPs or other Dells etc, so I decided to wait for sales or something in March, then I saw Santa Rosa was coming out "early Q2", so I decided to wait for that, I was hoping for April and now I'm waiting until June at the earliest? :(

dmelgar
Feb 25, 2007, 05:24 PM
I hope this means that a mini can now support HD drives with the new GPU. Lame ass integrated graphics kill the mac mini in terms of home theater. When I say HD I mean real HD not that wannabee crap(720p) but FULL 1080P. We shall see. **** iTV.
Where do you get the impression that the Mac Mini won't do full 1080p?

My understand is that it does play it. I have a Macbook, pretty much the same internals as a Mini, and it plays 1080p without a problem. However if I'm running other things, even the latest Parallels beta (although its not supposed to be doing anything it still consumes 20% CPU) then the Macbook will stutter playing 1080p. Thats the reason I reverted back to the non-beta Parallels release, and the reason why I'm waiting for a Duo Core 2 upgrade before buying a Mac Mini to specifically use as a home theater system (and waiting for Leopard).

Cult Follower
Feb 25, 2007, 05:25 PM
They aren't going to alienate the thousands who have either the CD Macbooks or anything with a weaker card (every Mac Mini for example).

That makes me feel a lot better.

4np
Feb 25, 2007, 05:38 PM
Cool. I'm glad to hear that. I want to buy my imac in the next week or so. To hear that hardware isn't getting much of an upgrade please's me.

It will be enough for what i want to do anyway :D

What are you talking about? We'll be getting Santa Rosa, leopard, LED lit displays, higher resolutions due to resolution independance in leopard, GPU upgrades and possibly more memory? I think that's quite an upgrade actually :)

4np
Feb 25, 2007, 05:41 PM
Would it then be possible to swap out the processor in iMacs,Minis,Macbooks etc to the new processor?

This has been asked -and answered- so many times... the cpu's are soldered on the motherboard. No way you can replace them, unless you're one heck of a solderer...

ictiosapiens
Feb 25, 2007, 05:44 PM
This has been asked -and answered- so many times... the cpu's are soldered on the motherboard. No way you can replace them, unless you're one heck of a solderer...


Not entirely true... They are soldered on the portables, but are swapable on the imac and the mini... A couple of guys did it on a mini with some merom samples and succeded...

steve_hill4
Feb 25, 2007, 05:49 PM
Figures, I decide to order an iMac and they go and update the chips :)

Not new news, I'm holding out for a new 24" iMac with Santa Rosa and Leopard and have been since October, (when I originally planned March to buy, but decided to buy once both implemented).

I had heard various suggestions recently which made me think I would be looking at even as late as October for what I wanted. I still hope I get much more than a processor upgrade and new OS for the same price come update time. iMacs need serious updates in RAM, HD and graphics too.

4np
Feb 25, 2007, 06:01 PM
Not entirely true... They are soldered on the portables, but are swapable on the imac and the mini... A couple of guys did it on a mini with some merom samples and succeded...

You're right; my response was perhaps a bit too quick. I was talking about the portables ;)

iW00t
Feb 25, 2007, 06:01 PM
I seem to have my ear to above average ground and many of my "predictions" have been pretty close.

So here we go . . . . .

iTV 3-07
iPhone 6-07

iMac Santa Rosa 6-07
Mac-Mini C2D 6-07
MacBook Pro Santa Rosa late 7-07
MacBook Santa Rosa 9-07
iMac C2Q late 7-07 dieshrink version

MacPro Octo announced at NAB, shipping 7-07
MPO bundles:
Adobe CS3
FC Extreme
Logic Extreme / Audoi apps

Leopard 10.5.0 May 1 and 10.5.1 delivered at WWDC-07 in time to be installed on most "new" Macs.

There. Anything "sooner" is a win. Anything missing entirely or more than 2 months later is a loss. I am shooting for a 70% record. Buy Apple stock.

Rocketman

This release schedule doesn't make sense. What will they release towards Christmas to drum up sales again?

Apple typically has 2 releases in the year for their laptops, one at the 1/2 half of the year and another closer to Christmas. Maybe we will see refreshes on the existing models with HD displays to take advantage of Leopard's resolution independence during Leopard's launch, and then another real update to SR during Christmas season.

iW00t
Feb 25, 2007, 06:07 PM
Not entirely true... They are soldered on the portables, but are swapable on the imac and the mini... A couple of guys did it on a mini with some merom samples and succeded...

Well I don't think that can be possible for the newer Santa Rosa based chips with 800Mhz FSB unless you can desolder the intel chipset and replace it with an i965 one as well :(

4np
Feb 25, 2007, 06:10 PM
Looking at intel's game compatability list (http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intelg965/sb/CS-023018.htm) for the x3000 there are still quite some issues with several games. For example Half Life 2 is not playable:


Half-Life* 2 game is not playable due to low frame rates (frames per second or FPS).

This issue has been recently reported and is currently being investigated. There is no workaround at this time. Additional information may be available at the game manufacturer's website.


But of course; the drivers are still under development so I'm sure this will be resolved in time...

Does anybody know a good comparison chart comparing the x3000 to high-end mobile gpu's from ATI and NVIDIA? And how does the x3000 perform in comparisson with the current x1600?

DMann
Feb 25, 2007, 06:10 PM
FINALLY -

This is what I have been waiting for from INTEL!

Hey Steve (J) - You're on top of this, right?


Ultimatetone

This is but one of the reasons that the Intel roadmap
persuaded Steve to switch over when he did......
He's on top of it, behind it, and under it....

DMann
Feb 25, 2007, 06:13 PM
Well I don't think that can be possible for the newer Santa Rosa based chips with 800Mhz FSB unless you can desolder the intel chipset and replace it with an i965 one as well :(

I don't believe the chip is soldered onto the motherboard
of the iMac or Mini......

zimtheinvader
Feb 25, 2007, 06:26 PM
I believe they will update @ WWDC to take advantage of 10.5's new features, as new hardware would compliment it nicely, esp. new video cards. However, it is entirely possible they will wait and do a "quiet" refresh later so as to divert all attention to 10.5 vs. Vista. I have learned to expect the worst in terms of timeliness as of late.

I hope they do not wait to update the MBP, it is high time they put more emphasis on the Pro lines, updating them BEFORE the iMac, which is traditionally not a powerhouse anyway.

I for one will likely be investing in a black MB since I can no longer wait for "the next best mac", and will add a MBP later in the summer after 10.5.x whenever they get new video cards or features to TRULY differentiate them from the consumer line. The Macbooks are so (relatively) cheap per Ghz that it is not so much a big deal, as it was with the 12" PBs which were truly an investment! (And had features accordingly.)

Yvan256
Feb 25, 2007, 06:41 PM
(post deleted)

Yvan256
Feb 25, 2007, 06:42 PM
I'm still using my first Mac ever (Mac mini G4/1.42GHz, upgraded to 80GB/5400RPM and 1GB myself), and I'll be waiting for Leopard, iLife '07, Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz and XMA3000 before I buy a new one.

Yvan256
Feb 25, 2007, 06:44 PM
I don't believe the chip is soldered onto the motherboard
of the iMac or Mini......

iW00t was talking about the chipset, not the CPU.

CJD2112
Feb 25, 2007, 06:53 PM
This is the chipset, not the CPU.

Ok, I asked this question before but no one answered. As I've built PC's back in my Windows days, I know that most motherboards (i.e. Mac Logicboards) can be upgraded with newer/faster chips assuming the chip matched the boards socket. There has been talk that a few Mac Pro users/developers were able to take out the dual core chips and replace them with two of the new Intel Quad Core Processors, thus producing an Octo Mac Pro (which is assumed to be announced by Steve Jobs as a new addition to the Mac Pro line). As a current Mac Pro 2.66 owner, will this be possible with my system? That is, when Apple switched to Intel Processors, did they also begin using motherboards that would be on par with a PC system [and thus upgradeable]? Thanks.

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 06:55 PM
Looking at intel's game compatability list (http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intelg965/sb/CS-023018.htm) for the x3000 there are still quite some issues with several games. For example Half Life 2 is not playable:



But of course; the drivers are still under development so I'm sure this will be resolved in time...

Does anybody know a good comparison chart comparing the x3000 to high-end mobile gpu's from ATI and NVIDIA? And how does the x3000 perform in comparisson with the current x1600?I answered this here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3389227&postcount=45).

Secondly, Intel HASN'T released a Windows driver that unlocks the hardware Transform & Lighting. It's still running via software mode.

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2007, 06:57 PM
This is really exciting, macs are moving along a lot faster after the intel switch.

But remember...Intel sucks. :rolleyes: Macrumors should create a best of stupid posts.

Everyone who said the iPod would fail. That the transition to X86 would doom Apple. And that the iPhone would fai....wait. Not so sure on that one. :p

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2007, 07:03 PM
Ok, I asked this question before but no one answered. As I've built PC's back in my Windows days, I know that most motherboards (i.e. Mac Logicboards) can be upgraded with newer/faster chips assuming the chip matched the boards socket. There has been talk that a few Mac Pro users/developers were able to take out the dual core chips and replace them with two of the new Intel Quad Core Processors, thus producing an Octo Mac Pro (which is assumed to be announced by Steve Jobs as a new addition to the Mac Pro line). As a current Mac Pro 2.66 owner, will this be possible with my system? That is, when Apple switched to Intel Processors, did they also begin using motherboards that would be on par with a PC system [and thus upgradeable]? Thanks.

You can't replace the mobo. Apple is using EFI instead of BIOS. Also when you install OS X it does some "stuff" with the Trusted Computing Chip on the mobo that verifies that its a Mac. I'm pretty sure if you replaced the mobo with a newer one OS X would give you a nice fat error. Then there is drivers. Your copy of OS X doesn't have drivers for SR.

EDIT: If you are talking the CPU...yah. The pinout hasn't changed.

imacdaddy
Feb 25, 2007, 07:29 PM
So how long to you think I will need to wait to get a new 24in imac with this new tech.????:confused:

I reckon June.

CJD2112
Feb 25, 2007, 07:34 PM
You can't replace the mobo. Apple is using EFI instead of BIOS. Also when you install OS X it does some "stuff" with the Trusted Computing Chip on the mobo that verifies that its a Mac. I'm pretty sure if you replaced the mobo with a newer one OS X would give you a nice fat error. Then there is drivers. Your copy of OS X doesn't have drivers for SR.

EDIT: If you are talking the CPU...yah. The pinout hasn't changed.

Yeah, I was referring to the CPU. A few months back, when Intel just released the Quad Core Chips, Macrumors posted an article that a couple of people swapped out the chips in their Mac Pro's with the new Quad Core chips and it booted up perfectly. The only questions were 1) if this story was legit 2) if this would/could apply to other Mac Pro units.

..oh, and thanks for responding, I really appreciate your help :)

Rocketman
Feb 25, 2007, 07:59 PM
Ok, I asked this question before but no one answered. As I've built PC's back in my Windows days, I know that most motherboards (i.e. Mac Logicboards) can be upgraded with newer/faster chips assuming the chip matched the boards socket. There has been talk that a few Mac Pro users/developers were able to take out the dual core chips and replace them with two of the new Intel Quad Core Processors, thus producing an Octo Mac Pro (which is assumed to be announced by Steve Jobs as a new addition to the Mac Pro line). As a current Mac Pro 2.66 owner, will this be possible with my system? That is, when Apple switched to Intel Processors, did they also begin using motherboards that would be on par with a PC system [and thus upgradeable]? Thanks.

Yes.

That sort of upgrade probably voids the warranty, but it works.

It is currently practical on:
Mac-Mini
iMac
MacPro
X-serve

Probably the biggest advantage is any upgrade from Core Duo or Core solo to Core 2 Duo (or soon Core 2 Quad).

Rocketman

localoid
Feb 25, 2007, 08:07 PM
It seems to be a good day for Santa Rosa rumors... ;)

Dell releasing "Santa Rosa" notebooks in April (http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3540&article=latitude+d630+d830)?

nsjoker
Feb 25, 2007, 08:36 PM
That makes me feel a lot better.

I just wanna remind everyone that Apple did screw over Mac mini early adopters by screwing them out of the ripple effect in dashboard in Tiger. Hopefully the same won't happen with Leopard.

dingamahoo
Feb 25, 2007, 09:31 PM
Please forgive my ignorance, but is this news about the chip breakthrough that I read about a few weeks ago? The story I read said that using a new alloy will allow chips to again double the speed of the computer or perhaps double the length of battery life. It said that already prototypes were being coded for Apple. I am just wondering if this is already the appearance of this breakthrough chip or it's something not quite so momentous. Thanks.

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2007, 09:59 PM
Yeah, I was referring to the CPU. A few months back, when Intel just released the Quad Core Chips, Macrumors posted an article that a couple of people swapped out the chips in their Mac Pro's with the new Quad Core chips and it booted up perfectly. The only questions were 1) if this story was legit 2) if this would/could apply to other Mac Pro units.

..oh, and thanks for responding, I really appreciate your help :)

The source was from Anandtech and they are about as credible as you can get.

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 10:09 PM
EDIT: If you are talking the CPU...yah. The pinout hasn't changed.Santa Rosa uses Socket P and NOT Socket M that is currently used by Yonah/Merom.

Please forgive my ignorance, but is this news about the chip breakthrough that I read about a few weeks ago? The story I read said that using a new alloy will allow chips to again double the speed of the computer or perhaps double the length of battery life. It said that already prototypes were being coded for Apple. I am just wondering if this is already the appearance of this breakthrough chip or it's something not quite so momentous. Thanks.No

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2007, 10:10 PM
Please forgive my ignorance, but is this news about the chip breakthrough that I read about a few weeks ago? The story I read said that using a new alloy will allow chips to again double the speed of the computer or perhaps double the length of battery life. It said that already prototypes were being coded for Apple. I am just wondering if this is already the appearance of this breakthrough chip or it's something not quite so momentous. Thanks.

Nope. What you are talking about is a new substance that is used for insulation in CPU's that cuts down on electrical leakage that has been a problem in the new 45nm process.
What is being talked about here is the platform used in the systemboard. Which includes several things including the chipset. Which sports a number of new features the least of which is a faster FSB that can scale in speed.

To get a better idea of what it is check this link out:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2845&p=2

While its all impressive I think there are a number of new techs that are going to be making their way into the spotlight in the next year to year and a half. All of which will slowly trickle out into the MBP, so by the time I've ready to upgrade in 2008..more like 2009 now...I think apple is going to have one heck of an impressive line of laptops. Right now what we are seeing in even the C2DMBP is only the beginning. New screens, new hard drives with integrated 512MB+ of cache, blu-ray, possible touch screens, fuel cells, etc, etc, etc. Once the dust settles in 2009..Gah. I'm going to be blowing another 3 grand on a new MBP...hopefully black by that time. :D

dingamahoo
Feb 25, 2007, 10:29 PM
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

CJD2112
Feb 25, 2007, 10:33 PM
The source was from Anandtech and they are about as credible as you can get.

Cool. Thanks. That rocks! :D

SiliconAddict
Feb 25, 2007, 10:55 PM
Santa Rosa uses Socket P and NOT Socket M that is currently used by Yonah/Merom.

No

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

The current quad cores are still using M. Which was the authors original question.

spiderdan
Feb 25, 2007, 10:57 PM
I need a portable video authoring system and have been holding out on purchasing a maxed out MBP ever since the rumors started flying around. Some of those rumors had the new MBP's coming out in March/April. Obviously that's not going to happen (and I really can't hold out any longer than that). Will there be a substantial performance improvement with using Final Cut Pro on the next generation Santa Rosa MBPs? Does FCP run well on the current MBPs? I will have a more robust setup when I'm not on the road (30" Cinema Display, 650GB Lacie HD, etc.).

Dan

Eidorian
Feb 25, 2007, 10:59 PM
The current quad cores are still using M. Which was the authors original question.Which quad cores?

Socket T (LGA 775) is for Kentsfield and Socket J (LGA 771) for Clovertown.

nslyax
Feb 25, 2007, 11:41 PM
This is excellent news. My G3 800 iBook isn't going to last me a whole lot longer.

Maccus Aurelius
Feb 25, 2007, 11:49 PM
I think I'll hold out for the Xeon Macbook Pro in '08 :p

sexyfoolxx
Feb 26, 2007, 12:04 AM
i think we'll see the SR upgrade as soon as it's available..the original release of SR was due out in April, so this topic is saying that it'll be pushed back a month...also there are rumors that penryn will be released sooner as well (opposed to the end of 2007 or early 2008) those are 2 updates for '07..also i thought the point of switching to intel would make it possible for more frequent updates?

SeaFox
Feb 26, 2007, 12:41 AM
...also i thought the point of switching to intel would make it possible for more frequent updates?

It would make the updates possible yes, not required. Apple switched to Intel due to IBM's inability to produce a good high-speed low-power/temp processor for a laptop, going to Intel gives them that chip and a good roadmap after that for both desktops and laptops. But as long as Apple is the only maker of Macs, there's no reason they have to upgrade if they don't want to.

They may be using the same technology as everyone else, but since you still can't go to another computer company and get a Mac if Apple's dragging their heels on getting the latest Intel chipset into a shipping product, it doesn't matter.

sexyfoolxx
Feb 26, 2007, 12:45 AM
It would make the updates possible yes, not required. Apple switched to Intel due to IBM's inability to produce a good high-speed low-power/temp processor for a laptop, going to Intel gives them that chip and a good roadmap after that for both desktops and laptops. But as long as Apple is the only maker of Macs, there's no reason they have to upgrade if they don't want to.

They may be using the same technology as everyone else, but since you still can't go to another computer company and get a Mac if Apple's dragging their heels on getting the latest Intel chipset into a shipping product, it doesn't matter.

considering that macs are being sold next to other pc's at circuit city and best buy, i'd say they hafta stay on top of the game, wouldn't you?

Latino
Feb 26, 2007, 12:46 AM
1. I did mention that you can run 64-bit programs. You just can't use the addressing over 4 GB with the current i945 chipset.

2. Scientific programs mostly benefit since you can address data to memory Vs. using virtual memory.

3. 64-bit addressing is only called as necessary if you code the program correctly it'll stick with 32-bit. Apple addressed this at WWDC2006. It was a good session. :D

1. I thought you wrote that he couldn't benefit from 64bit-ness because his computer was unable to use more than 3GB of RAM. This statement is not true, as calculations on 64bit numbers will be performed substantially faster than if it were a 32bit machine, and therefore get a speed improvement. But may be I simply missunderstood you, and if so, I'm sorry :)

2. I would think it depends on the scientific problem. Some problems actually require small data sets, but many computations on 64bit numbers. But I am no scientist, and I don't know what type of problem is more prevalent in the scientific world

3. That I didn't know, and I agree it's neat. By programming it correctly, I assume you mean sticking to 32bit numbers?

Eidorian
Feb 26, 2007, 12:48 AM
1. I thought you wrote that he couldn't benefit from 64bit-ness because his computer was unable to use more than 3GB of RAM. This statement is not true, as calculations on 64bit numbers will be performed substantially faster than if it were a 32bit machine, and therefore get a speed improvement. But may be I simply missunderstood you, and if so, I'm sorry :)That's fine. Even if you can't address more then 4 GB of RAM, certain computations will run faster.


2. I would think it depends on the scientific problem. Some problems actually require small data sets, but many computations on 64bit numbers. But I am no scientist, and I don't know what type of problem is more prevalent in the scientific worldLarge data sets of course.


3. That I didn't know, and I agree it's neat. By programming it correctly, I assume you mean sticking to 32bit numbers?It is neat! Just a nifty if statement and you won't address beyond what you need.

If you sign up for a free ADC account you can view the ADC on iTunes video sessions.

ejsavage
Feb 26, 2007, 01:00 AM
.7 MHz?

Wow.

Well yes and no. The IMac is now at 2.16 GHz with the Built to order option 2.33 GHz. I think where the speed bump comes is, with the 800 MHz front side bus and other design features. How ever, and I hope some one can comment on this. Why does Apple use a Laptop motherboard in a Desktop in the first place? Is it heat? I was lead to believe that the G5 was much hotter then the Core2Duo, and it was used in the IMac. Is it price? More cost effective to use one type of motherboard.

SeaFox
Feb 26, 2007, 01:05 AM
considering that macs are being sold next to other pc's at circuit city and best buy, i'd say they hafta stay on top of the game, wouldn't you?

Not if you're trying to run hundreds of dollars in Macintosh apps. By that logic someone with a buttload of PS3 games might buy an XBox 360 if they had a hardware failure with their Sony deck.

This is exactly one of the things that keeps people away from the Mac. Why do we keep seeing people asking for a small, expandable tower Mac? Something smaller than a Mac Pro, closer in price to a MacBook but with an upgradeable graphics card and PCI slot or two at most? Because Apple has their customers locked into their own hardware line, but some people want a machine like that and one doesn't exist. People like choice and competition and that's not something they get when there's only one company to "choose" from. That applies to all industries.

What incentive does Apple have to be quick about turning out new models based on new technologies, having to go through hardware design and testing, software tweaking, etc when they have no one really to compete with for Mac users' dollars? They can roll out their designs when they please and as long as the performance gap between the people making Wintels who are using the newer Santa Rosa base and Apple isn't big enough to get customers to invest the time and money in switching platforms, they're fine.

drsmithy
Feb 26, 2007, 01:12 AM
I hope this means that a mini can now support HD drives with the new GPU. Lame ass integrated graphics kill the mac mini in terms of home theater. When I say HD I mean real HD not that wannabee crap(720p) but FULL 1080P. We shall see. **** iTV.

The Mini already plays 1080p just fine. Or, at least, it does running Windows MCE as my HTPC. OS X is slower, but I don't think it's _that_ much slower, especially when all it's doing is displaying video.

The biggest influence on playing HD is CPU power, not video card. The Mini makes an excellent HTPC (at least running Windows MCE).

I have to agree with your sentiment about the 'iTV' though - I think Apple has badly misjudged there (even with the 720p limitation).

Aniej
Feb 26, 2007, 02:13 AM
A couple of questions that hopefully will answer a lot of the questions for people less familiar with some of the technology being discussed here.

1. What is the difference between a chipset and CPU; what do each of these independently improve, i.e., speed, graphics, etc?

To take it a step farther, the CPU will be the same, just with a minor speed bump.. nothing like the Core to Core 2 switch

Santa Rosa is more about the chipset supporting the CPU than it is about the CPU itself. The chipset will feature 802.11n wireless, DDR2-800 memory and FSB800 (so the current 2.33GHz CPU would be able to run at 2.4GHz, etc.).

2. So it sounds like Santa Rosa is more about improving certain graphics related issues and whatever is improved upon with increased front bus speed?

3. I guess I thought Santa Rosa was supposed to be a major breakthrough (I recognize that it is for the people talking about the gaming graphics) but it isn't sounding all that amazing in terms of big speed changes like we saw a year ago. If that is what I am interested in, and it is, then am I waiting more for Nehalem microarchitecture and not these changes associated with Santa Rosa?

4. I recall several articles on here discussing incorporation of LED backlit screens, yet no mention here?

5. This quote below makes absolutely no sense to me. MacWorld is in Jan., maybe they mean WWDC? And while on the topic of the strange calendar this person seems to have, if the idea is to get the kids ready for fall semester how could the release be in the fall when the kids are already in school? Aren't most back to school sales Aug/Sept. in the last month before school starts, least time I check this was still considered summer.

Expect MacPRo to be upgraded either in april during NAB(along with FCS 6 & (or) FC Extreme) or during Mac World in June.

As for Santa Rosa, dont get your hopes up for immediate May release. Expect this to come out in the Fall to get those kiddies ready for the upcoming Fall school semester.

iW00t
Feb 26, 2007, 02:23 AM
A couple of questions that hopefully will answer a lot of the questions for people less familiar with some of the technology being discussed here.

1. What is the difference between a chipset and CPU; what do each of these independently improve, i.e., speed, graphics, etc?



I wouldn't put it like this.

The chipset and its associated CPU should be thought more of as a single component rather than discrete parts. One cannot work without the other.

Evangelion
Feb 26, 2007, 03:17 AM
.7 MHz?

Wow.

Um, that's 67MHz, not 0.7MHz. And it has faster bus. Maybe faster RAM. And it has host of other features. So that 70Mhz can actually take you quite a long way. And it's not like the Core Duo's are slow the way they are.

Evangelion
Feb 26, 2007, 03:19 AM
Yes, but it's only going to be useful for a minor part of the notebook market due to the cost of 2GB SO-DIMMS.

I wonder why they don't put more memory-slots in laptop? MacBook Pro's could have four slots, whereas MacBooks would have two.

iW00t
Feb 26, 2007, 04:02 AM
I wonder why they don't put more memory-slots in laptop? MacBook Pro's could have four slots, whereas MacBooks would have two.

Not enough room perhaps?

matticus008
Feb 26, 2007, 05:19 AM
I really hope they don't make leopard's graphics reliant on this new graphics chip. I have a core duo macbook and want to run leopard without any downgrades.
Leopard does not, nor will it, require Shader 3.0. Most Apple users do not have an appropriate graphics card to do so. It may well be relevant to 10.6 or 10.7, but probably still will not be required, just as Shader 2.0 isn't absolutely required now.

1. What is the difference between a chipset and CPU; what do each of these independently improve, i.e., speed, graphics, etc?

The chipset and its associated CPU should be thought more of as a single component rather than discrete parts. One cannot work without the other.
Not at all. The chipset and CPU are quite distinct from each other; a single chipset can support several generations of vastly different CPUs. The venerable Intel 945, for example, supports Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Extreme CPUs (as well as Celeron derivatives). Thinking of them as a single unit places unnecessary and inappropriate limits on the technology.

In short, the chipset supports the operation of the system as a whole. It contains all the limiting logic of the motherboard--what memory types and speeds are supported, the socket/FSB/model of CPU supported, and it packages the onboard ethernet, sound, video, and wireless as applicable to the current platform. In most respects, the chipset is the logic board in the traditional Apple sense (i.e. it is "the" computer, minus the RAM and CPU [and graphics card, for systems without onboard graphics).

The CPU on the other hand is just the part that does the calculations. It is responsible for the major performance of software (apart from graphics). The chipset plays an important, but less dramatic role in speed and performance. The chipset has become the key limiting factor in the modern age--the onboard graphics can't be upgraded; you can't break the limits imposed on the type and quantity of RAM; you can only upgrade CPUs to the maximum supported by the chipset. Exceeding any of these limits requires a new computer.


3. I guess I thought Santa Rosa was supposed to be a major breakthrough (I recognize that it is for the people talking about the gaming graphics) but it isn't sounding all that amazing in terms of big speed changes like we saw a year ago.
I wouldn't say that Santa Rosa's major contribution is in the area of graphics. It is certainly the most visible and directly applicable improvement for end-users, but it is the next major step in the comprehensive overhaul of the x86 architecture as we know it. We aren't going to be seeing any massive speed changes like we experienced five years ago; the technology we have is mature and improvements will be incremental barring any major breakthroughs.

This is why we're having multiple cores pushed onto us--it's a way of extending Moore's Law while the semiconductor industry has essentially stalled. In its defense, home users rarely need even as much power as available to them now. There's not really any new necessity to push home user markets forward.

...how could the release be in the fall when the kids are already in school? Aren't most back to school sales Aug/Sept. in the last month before school starts, least time I check this was still considered summer.
Updates usually do happen after the "back to school" sales have depleted inventory. This is advantageous for everyone--students get good deals and push out extra inventory allowing for the faster shipment of updated models. Students simply don't need the absolute newest and cutting edge to ship before school starts; in the traditional marketing sense, they're budget-oriented shoppers distracted by shiny objects. Any unusual student seeking the best and newest would schedule updates around the end of the first semester to capitalize on the typical release schedule; those students aren't first time computer owners.

gnasher729
Feb 26, 2007, 06:57 AM
No more running 3D games in software emulation mode for transform and lighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%26L). In essence it makes the Intel integrated graphics card much more like REAL video cards have been since 2001.

Except that it is 2007 now, and the importance of hardware vertex shading is much less now than it was six years ago. Decent quality lighting is done in the pixelshader anyway, and not in the vertexshader which can only supply interpolated values.

ready2switch
Feb 26, 2007, 08:42 AM
Yes, but [the ability to address more than 3.0GB of memory is] only going to be useful for a minor part of the notebook market due to the cost of 2GB SO-DIMMS.

Today, yes.

Many are looking to buy a laptop that will still be "top-of-the-line" in a few years. It's all about future-proofing and upgradability.

:D

AidenShaw
Feb 26, 2007, 09:25 AM
Today, yes.

Many are looking to buy a laptop that will still be "top-of-the-line" in a few years. It's all about future-proofing and upgradability.

:D

I agree, but not quite with the characterization that anyone would expect a 3 year old laptop to remain "top-of-the-line".

I think that people buy the latest/greatest in the hope that it would remain close enough to top-of-the-line for several years that there's no real point to upgrading. That's the real future-proofing IMO, and the real value in spending extra for a high-end system.

For example, I have a 3.5 year old Pentium M laptop - top-of-line when I bought it. (1.7 GHz/2GiB/Radeon discreet)

It's still my main laptop. For most tasks, it's not enough slower than my 2.33 GHz Merom to worry about. (For video editing, or a big Photoshop session, the Merom comes out though.)

For some things, however, the old system is completely obsolete (won't run 64-bit software, 2 GiB memory limit, ...) Those things, however, aren't yet important enough to put the Pentium M out to pasture.

Santa Rosa looks like a big enough leap that it will be high-end for quite some time - Robson and DX10 are new features that will become more important over time.

twoodcc
Feb 26, 2007, 09:56 AM
I agree, but not quite with the characterization that anyone would expect a 3 year old laptop to remain "top-of-the-line".

I think that people buy the latest/greatest in the hope that it would remain close enough to top-of-the-line for several years that there's no real point to upgrading. That's the real future-proofing IMO, and the real value in spending extra for a high-end system.

For example, I have a 3.5 year old Pentium M laptop - top-of-line when I bought it. (1.7 GHz/2GiB/Radeon discreet)

It's still my main laptop. For most tasks, it's not enough slower than my 2.33 GHz Merom to worry about. (For video editing, or a big Photoshop session, the Merom comes out though.)

For some things, however, the old system is completely obsolete (won't run 64-bit software, 2 GiB memory limit, ...) Those things, however, aren't yet important enough to put the Pentium M out to pasture.

Santa Rosa looks like a big enough leap that it will be high-end for quite some time - Robson and DX10 are new features that will become more important over time.

yeah i agree here. i believe this is why most people try to spend more now, so it will last, but clearly won't be the top-of-the-line for 3 years.

Mogwaih
Feb 26, 2007, 10:55 AM
The Mini already plays 1080p just fine. Or, at least, it does running Windows MCE as my HTPC. OS X is slower, but I don't think it's _that_ much slower, especially when all it's doing is displaying video.

The biggest influence on playing HD is CPU power, not video card. The Mini makes an excellent HTPC (at least running Windows MCE).

I have to agree with your sentiment about the 'iTV' though - I think Apple has badly misjudged there (even with the 720p limitation).

Well, according to X3000 specifications it has VC-1 video acceleration. I guess that would relieve the CPU while playing HD-DVD and Bluray a lot.

Anyways, the reason i waited to buy a mac mini was that it could play 1080p material flawlessly and i could play Civ IV on it. I can't wait for June :apple: mini.

sexyfoolxx
Feb 26, 2007, 11:36 AM
Not if you're trying to run hundreds of dollars in Macintosh apps. By that logic someone with a buttload of PS3 games might buy an XBox 360 if they had a hardware failure with their Sony deck.

This is exactly one of the things that keeps people away from the Mac. Why do we keep seeing people asking for a small, expandable tower Mac? Something smaller than a Mac Pro, closer in price to a MacBook but with an upgradeable graphics card and PCI slot or two at most? Because Apple has their customers locked into their own hardware line, but some people want a machine like that and one doesn't exist. People like choice and competition and that's not something they get when there's only one company to "choose" from. That applies to all industries.

What incentive does Apple have to be quick about turning out new models based on new technologies, having to go through hardware design and testing, software tweaking, etc when they have no one really to compete with for Mac users' dollars? They can roll out their designs when they please and as long as the performance gap between the people making Wintels who are using the newer Santa Rosa base and Apple isn't big enough to get customers to invest the time and money in switching platforms, they're fine.

the logic is perfect with the mac, because they can run windows for those apps they can't live withoutor that don't work on os x...and you're basically saying that apple should forget about the mac and not update when new products are available, when macs are being directly compared to pc's now, you can look at them both side by side, this is hardware that people now understand and can relate to (because they've been using it with their windows machine)...also there is a lot of buzz around the SR platform and apple holding out would make them look bad, just as people wanting a mid-range tower...more choices in the apple line means more sells/more switchers...also there will be a lot of leopard hype, who wants a fresh OS with last years technology?

Aniej
Feb 26, 2007, 11:53 AM
Honestly, this has to be the single best and most comprehensive answer I have ever received on here. Normally the response is just a baseless assumption marked by overly inflated self-congratulation. Rumors or one thing, and they are great fun, but informed comments based on legitimate questions is a completely different situation. Thanks again!

Leopard does not, nor will it, require Shader 3.0. Most Apple users do not have an appropriate graphics card to do so. It may well be relevant to 10.6 or 10.7, but probably still will not be required, just as Shader 2.0 isn't absolutely required now.


Not at all. The chipset and CPU are quite distinct from each other; a single chipset can support several generations of vastly different CPUs. The venerable Intel 945, for example, supports Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Extreme CPUs (as well as Celeron derivatives). Thinking of them as a single unit places unnecessary and inappropriate limits on the technology.

In short, the chipset supports the operation of the system as a whole. It contains all the limiting logic of the motherboard--what memory types and speeds are supported, the socket/FSB/model of CPU supported, and it packages the onboard ethernet, sound, video, and wireless as applicable to the current platform. In most respects, the chipset is the logic board in the traditional Apple sense (i.e. it is "the" computer, minus the RAM and CPU [and graphics card, for systems without onboard graphics).

The CPU on the other hand is just the part that does the calculations. It is responsible for the major performance of software (apart from graphics). The chipset plays an important, but less dramatic role in speed and performance. The chipset has become the key limiting factor in the modern age--the onboard graphics can't be upgraded; you can't break the limits imposed on the type and quantity of RAM; you can only upgrade CPUs to the maximum supported by the chipset. Exceeding any of these limits requires a new computer.


I wouldn't say that Santa Rosa's major contribution is in the area of graphics. It is certainly the most visible and directly applicable improvement for end-users, but it is the next major step in the comprehensive overhaul of the x86 architecture as we know it. We aren't going to be seeing any massive speed changes like we experienced five years ago; the technology we have is mature and improvements will be incremental barring any major breakthroughs.

This is why we're having multiple cores pushed onto us--it's a way of extending Moore's Law while the semiconductor industry has essentially stalled. In its defense, home users rarely need even as much power as available to them now. There's not really any new necessity to push home user markets forward.


Updates usually do happen after the "back to school" sales have depleted inventory. This is advantageous for everyone--students get good deals and push out extra inventory allowing for the faster shipment of updated models. Students simply don't need the absolute newest and cutting edge to ship before school starts; in the traditional marketing sense, they're budget-oriented shoppers distracted by shiny objects. Any unusual student seeking the best and newest would schedule updates around the end of the first semester to capitalize on the typical release schedule; those students aren't first time computer owners.

Clive At Five
Feb 26, 2007, 12:13 PM
It just so happens that I'll be looking to upgrade this summer. This is welcomed news. ;)

-Clive

dingamahoo
Feb 26, 2007, 05:34 PM
I wouldn't say that Santa Rosa's major contribution is in the area of graphics. It is certainly the most visible and directly applicable improvement for end-users, but it is the next major step in the comprehensive overhaul of the x86 architecture as we know it. We aren't going to be seeing any massive speed changes like we experienced five years ago; the technology we have is mature and improvements will be incremental barring any major breakthroughs.

This is why we're having multiple cores pushed onto us--it's a way of extending Moore's Law while the semiconductor industry has essentially stalled. In its defense, home users rarely need even as much power as available to them now. There's not really any new necessity to push home user markets forward.

Sorry to pipe in again. But my rather naive question above about momentous advancements was related to the NYT article of a few weeks ago about precisely that new Intel breakthrough with the alloy that allows better insulation. The article specifically discussed Moore's law and said that just as everything seemed to point to a stall in chip advancement, here was another breakthrough proving the law. This would seem to contradict what you were just saying. The article said that Intel was already working to make chip prototypes compatible with Mac code and that the chips might be available by the end of the year. In fact, I was going to try to hold out to get one of the new superfast chips when they come out. Is this next wave not yet even on the radar for consumers?

DMann
Feb 26, 2007, 05:43 PM
Sorry to pipe in again. But my rather naive question above about momentous advancements was related to the NYT article of a few weeks ago about precisely that new Intel breakthrough with the alloy that allows better insulation. The article specifically discussed Moore's law and said that just as everything seemed to point to a stall in chip advancement, here was another breakthrough proving the law. This would seem to contradict what you were just saying. The article said that Intel was already working to make chip prototypes compatible with Mac code and that the chips might be available by the end of the year. In fact, I was going to try to hold out to get one of the new superfast chips when they come out. Is this next wave not yet even on the radar for consumers?

Yes, let's hope we get them by the end of the year. At 45nm,
these chips will accelerate speed exponentially.

matticus008
Feb 26, 2007, 08:17 PM
The article specifically discussed Moore's law and said that just as everything seemed to point to a stall in chip advancement, here was another breakthrough proving the law. This would seem to contradict what you were just saying.
Not so much a contradiction as an attempt to show that they haven't been sitting on their hands for years. The transition to 65nm was just recently completed, but there were no significant speed gains. There certainly were other improvements (reduced TDP, power consumption, increased yields), but no breakthroughs. Circa 2004 CPU cores are still highly competitive three years later--the benchmark numbers are only inflated on new CPUs because of the introduction of multi-core technology. The simple fact is that we've gone three or more years without any real clock speed advances, and this has caused manufacturers to look to other measures of performance to improve. The Pentium 4 is the perfect example. It was created because it had a lot of room for high clock speeds, but it is in fact a rather poor performer on the whole. The Core platform went back to the slower clocked, but higher performance Pentium III (Pentium M) design and looked to improve performance in other ways. It is in some ways a resurrection of the Pentium Pro philosophy--make a better processor all around instead of just a faster clocked one.

Is this next wave not yet even on the radar for consumers?
No, it's not. There might be some of these new processors on the market by year's end, but not the entire line, and they won't be introduced at the uncharacteristically low prices of the Core 2 Duo. The C2D launch has spoiled newcomers to the market--they weren't paying attention back when whole new architectures entered at $1000+ for the early adopters (compared to the low-end C2D launch price of $190). Since we've gone so long without any major overhauls of the process, materials, or design of processors, the price has fallen quite a bit. Further, the number of these announced technologies that ultimately don't pan out is quite high.

Yes, let's hope we get them by the end of the year. At 45nm,
these chips will accelerate speed exponentially.
Not likely. At 65nm, transistors are close to the mechanical limits of speed. Reducing to 45nm isn't going to open up a huge new range for speed. It will lower temperatures and power requirements, but the small size introduces a new set of problems with signal leakage. Switching to a different material might allow for faster transistor operation, but it will be some time before that is a real possibility.

DMann
Feb 26, 2007, 08:29 PM
Not likely. At 65nm, transistors are close to the mechanical limits of speed. Reducing to 45nm isn't going to open up a huge new range for speed. It will lower temperatures and power requirements, but the small size introduces a new set of problems with signal leakage. Switching to a different material might allow for faster transistor operation, but it will be some time before that is a real possibility.

Yes, I do understand. However, what I was referring to was having
the transistors reduced to 45 nm, in combination with the new insulating
material, would produce far less heat, thus enabling them to clock at much
higher frequencies. Heat and signal leakage have both made up the
Achilles Heal of progress on this front for some time.

dernhelm
Feb 27, 2007, 07:11 AM
Yes, I do understand. However, what I was referring to was having
the transistors reduced to 45 nm, in combination with the new insulating
material, would produce far less heat, thus enabling them to clock at much
higher frequencies. Heat and signal leakage have both made up the
Achilles Heal of progress on this front for some time.

Or the Achilles Heel of progress. ;)

From Intel's own pressroom (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060125comp.htm):


Our 45nm technology will provide the foundation for delivering PCs with improved performance–per– watt that will enhance the user experience.


... and ...


Intel’s 45nm process technology will allow chips with more than five times less leakage power than those made today. This will improve battery life for mobile devices and increase opportunities for building smaller, more powerful platforms.


It's more about performance per watt and battery life than about cranking up the GHz.

Pooldraft
Feb 27, 2007, 09:34 AM
Where do you get the impression that the Mac Mini won't do full 1080p?

My understand is that it does play it. I have a Macbook, pretty much the same internals as a Mini, and it plays 1080p without a problem. However if I'm running other things, even the latest Parallels beta (although its not supposed to be doing anything it still consumes 20% CPU) then the Macbook will stutter playing 1080p. Thats the reason I reverted back to the non-beta Parallels release, and the reason why I'm waiting for a Duo Core 2 upgrade before buying a Mac Mini to specifically use as a home theater system (and waiting for Leopard).

I am looking for it to push my projector. Which from the little voice of others I have heard that it has some GPU issues due to the intel video integration.

I hope that I am wrong but I can't have my 100" screen shuttering no matter what I am running in the background. I need my Democracy TV on my projector. Looks like I will be waiting for C2D before I purchase one. I am not much of a fan of the INTEL, DAMN YOU APPLE!:D

jayb2000
Feb 27, 2007, 10:53 AM
Ahhh, enough with the technical jibbber-jabber :D

I just want newer, faster, shiner!

Seriously, I think there are a bunch of people out there who are holding out for Leopard before they upgrade. I really hope the SR chips show up soon, I would love to get a MacBook with SR & Leopard this summer

Or a MBP

Or a new miniMac tower

Or all of the above!

Shotglass
Feb 27, 2007, 12:42 PM
Seriously, I think there are a bunch of people out there who are holding out for Leopard before they upgrade.
And I'm one of them. If Santa Rosa comes out before or only slightly after Leopard, I want a Santa Rosa MBP! :D

dumbmonk
Feb 27, 2007, 02:02 PM
I am two of them...:D Santa Rosa + Leopard + Macbook pro in black (hopefully), Come on Steve! dont make me disappointed.

____________________________________________
PowerMac g5 2.0, 3G Ram, ipod video 60G in black

wizard
Feb 27, 2007, 02:12 PM
I believe his impression is correct. At this point in time there is not an Intel CPU that can fully handle 1080P content in ll its many forms. The fact that a few titles have ran successfully for you means nothing largely because of the considerable variability in what the content streams can contain.

There is a recent thread on this somewhere over on Arstechnica about this. A poster there that goes by the name MrNSX is deeply involved in the issues. The really bad part is that there does not appear to be an Intel processor on the horizon that will be able to handle all 1080P content completely. Thus the importance of being able to off load some processing to the GPU.

In any event anyone buying a Mini for 1080P content is making a mistake in my opinion. Even with a C2D upgrade it still is stressed with this content. The reality is that buying any PC hardware at this stage to support 1080P is a tough call. Yes you can have successes with such but feature rich content can quickly saturate the CPU.

Dave


Where do you get the impression that the Mac Mini won't do full 1080p?

My understand is that it does play it. I have a Macbook, pretty much the same internals as a Mini, and it plays 1080p without a problem. However if I'm running other things, even the latest Parallels beta (although its not supposed to be doing anything it still consumes 20% CPU) then the Macbook will stutter playing 1080p. Thats the reason I reverted back to the non-beta Parallels release, and the reason why I'm waiting for a Duo Core 2 upgrade before buying a Mac Mini to specifically use as a home theater system (and waiting for Leopard).

wizard
Feb 27, 2007, 02:43 PM
Not so much a contradiction as an attempt to show that they haven't been sitting on their hands for years. The transition to 65nm was just recently completed, but there were no significant speed gains. There certainly were other improvements (reduced TDP, power consumption, increased yields), but no breakthroughs. Circa 2004 CPU cores are still highly competitive three years later--the benchmark numbers are only inflated on new CPUs because of the introduction of multi-core technology.

The above statements can only be seen as garbage. First clock rates have increased due to the new technology. Intel hasn't had the need to introduce chips with significantly faster clock rates because they have vastly enhanced the core of their processors. In many cases instructions are doing twice the work per clock than they where before Core 2. The fact that these C2D's easily over clock to 3GHz completely disqualifies your statement. In any event manufactures such as IBM have been increasing clock rates with very good results, albeit slow to delivery.

The impact of multicore technology on benchmarks is variable at best. If the bench mark is single threaded and the Core 2 Dual executes it considerably faster than old CPU technologies then that is due to improvements in the core of the processor.


The simple fact is that we've gone three or more years without any real clock speed advances, and this has caused manufacturers to look to other measures of performance to improve. The Pentium 4 is the perfect example. It was created because it had a lot of room for high clock speeds, but it is in fact a rather poor performer on the whole.

The P4 was created because Intel thought that they where in a GHz race. While I agree that the processor was a poor performer, especially relative to the previous generation, it was designed to allow significant increases in clock rate as much for marketing as anything else.

In any event I have to disagree with your statement about clock rates. Just about every C2D can be run significantly faster than the speeds at which it is marketed. It does so while doing much more per clock. This is tied to the improvements gained at 65 nm. The one thing that is obvious is that if Intel wanted to they could market the Core 2 D based on clock rate if they wanted to. They don't need to because they have an effective hammer to pound AMD with.

The Core platform went back to the slower clocked, but higher performance Pentium III (Pentium M) design and looked to improve performance in other ways. It is in some ways a resurrection of the Pentium Pro philosophy--make a better processor all around instead of just a faster clocked one.

This is more or less the case. What you seem to be missing is that the Core 2's have a huge amount of head room as far as clock rate goes. This is related to 65nm.


No, it's not. There might be some of these new processors on the market by year's end, but not the entire line, and they won't be introduced at the uncharacteristically low prices of the Core 2 Duo. The C2D launch has spoiled newcomers to the market--they weren't paying attention back when whole new architectures entered at $1000+ for the early adopters (compared to the low-end C2D launch price of $190).

You are making unfounded assumptions here. No one knows how the new materials will impact processor construction and thus costs. Even then that has little to do with the price that the part is actually marketed at. That price will likely be the result of a number of things including competition.


Since we've gone so long without any major overhauls of the process, materials, or design of processors, the price has fallen quite a bit.

You don't think that the Core 2 was the result of a processor redesign or overhaul? Frankly I see it as a very credible effort on Intels part.


Further, the number of these announced technologies that ultimately don't pan out is quite high.

Isn't that th truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One the other hand it looks like IBM/AMD are on a very similar development path. So lets hope that this is real.


Not likely. At 65nm, transistors are close to the mechanical limits of speed. Reducing to 45nm isn't going to open up a huge new range for speed.

I would disagree with this.

It will lower temperatures and power requirements, but the small size introduces a new set of problems with signal leakage. Switching to a different material might allow for faster transistor operation, but it will be some time before that is a real possibility.

I believe that that statement is in opposition to what was being described by the manufactures. In any event I suspect that 2009 will be the time frame for such technologies. In any event I don't think we are long ways off from 4 gigahertz processors. It might not be a clock rate race like before, but clock rate will continue to impact processor performance.

Dave

wizard
Feb 27, 2007, 02:59 PM
Looking at intel's game compatability list (http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intelg965/sb/CS-023018.htm) for the x3000 there are still quite some issues with several games. For example Half Life 2 is not playable:



But of course; the drivers are still under development so I'm sure this will be resolved in time...

Which brings up the question of "when do driver leave development"? It seems t me that driver development pretty much stops once the chip is no longer a valid choice for a processor. Otherwise GPU driver development seems to be a continuous endeavor.

Dave


Does anybody know a good comparison chart comparing the x3000 to high-end mobile gpu's from ATI and NVIDIA? And how does the x3000 perform in comparisson with the current x1600?

Eidorian
Feb 27, 2007, 03:38 PM
Which brings up the question of "when do driver leave development"? It seems t me that driver development pretty much stops once the chip is no longer a valid choice for a processor. Otherwise GPU driver development seems to be a continuous endeavor.

DaveIntel has updated the drivers recently for Vista/XP.

http://guides.macrumors.com/GMA_X3000

I've seen anywhere from ATi X550 to nVidia 7300 GS performance range. The best estimate I've heard is that the average is an nVidia 5600 Ultra.

That's a lot of card lingo. I've also posted this 2 times in this thread already...

http://deadmoo.com/articles/2006/09/28/intels-new-onboard-video-benchmarked

localoid
Feb 27, 2007, 09:14 PM
Some specs/info available on the X3000 in this article (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/chipsets/display/ig965-gf6150_3.html) plus info on other integrated video platforms...

matticus008
Feb 27, 2007, 09:17 PM
The above statements can only be seen as garbage. First clock rates have increased due to the new technology. Intel hasn't had the need to introduce chips with significantly faster clock rates because they have vastly enhanced the core of their processors.
Hardly. They've gone back and improved their processors precisely because they hit practical walls in clock speed. If they could have just kept up a clock speed race, they wouldn't have changed. Intel switched gears because their processors were being outperformed by cooler, more efficient, better designed processors from AMD.
The fact that these C2D's easily over clock to 3GHz completely disqualifies your statement.
3GHz has been attainable since 2004. The processors released today are slower in clock speed than the ones that were previously available, which is exactly what I referred to originally.
The impact of multicore technology on benchmarks is variable at best. If the bench mark is single threaded and the Core 2 Dual executes it considerably faster than old CPU technologies then that is due to improvements in the core of the processor.
It is directly attributable to the abandonment of NetBurst in the majority of cases, not to some new technology that wasn't available in 2004.
In any event I have to disagree with your statement about clock rates. Just about every C2D can be run significantly faster than the speeds at which it is marketed. It does so while doing much more per clock.
So can most Pentium D CPUs (air cooled to over 4GHz, water cooled to nearly 5) as well as all Athlons. Comparing potential performance beyond spec is at best a spurious way to make a claim. Stick to official numbers.

This is tied to the improvements gained at 65 nm. The one thing that is obvious is that if Intel wanted to they could market the Core 2 D based on clock rate if they wanted to.
Nonsense. The 65nm process doesn't make it any more or less easy to break 3GHz than the 90nm process. Size reduction lowers temperature, TDP, and power consumption. It does not increase clock speed room unless the constraining factor is heat. Heat has not been the primary constraining factor for quite some time now, so it's a moot point.
This is more or less the case. What you seem to be missing is that the Core 2's have a huge amount of head room as far as clock rate goes. This is related to 65nm.
They do, but it has very little to do with the 65nm process and a great deal to do with the refinements made to the Pentium M core.
You are making unfounded assumptions here. No one knows how the new materials will impact processor construction and thus costs.
Granted, but you miss the point. The point is that the Core lineup was introduced with nothing new. The fundamental architecture was preexisting, the 65nm process had already been debuted in the Pentium D, the chipsets had already been developed, the socket was preexisting, and the materials and methods were proven. This is unlike the launch of previous processors, which involved all-new cores or previously unused materials/methods/die sizes. The net effect is that the launch price of the Core 2 Duo is substantially less than a typical launch. Look no further than AMD, which cannot match Intel's prices with their X2 lineup despite having launched the A64 at a much lower price than Intel's Pentium 4. Intel can certainly afford to play pricing games, but that's an artificial effect that has no bearing on the fact that the next generation of Intel processors will be a great deal more expensive to produce than the C2D have been.
You don't think that the Core 2 was the result of a processor redesign or overhaul? Frankly I see it as a very credible effort on Intels part.
It is indeed a credible effort, but it is not the result of anything new. SSE3, NX, EM64T, dual core, LGA775, 65nm were all preexisting technologies. All Intel did was expertly choose the best attributes to fuse together into the Core architecture. They took the Pentium D's dual core design and EM64T instructions (stolen from AMD) and integrated it with a Pentium M low-pipelined architecture and applied the whole thing to Intel's highly successful 65nm process. The end result is an efficient, powerful, sophisticated processor. But almost nothing in it is groundbreaking technology.
I believe that that statement is in opposition to what was being described by the manufactures.
That would only be the case if the description referred to the status quo. As it stands, they're simply trumpeting the future because they've got nothing on the shelves to stir interest now that they weren't marketing 3 years ago, aside from dual core. They're very successful at marketing their products, but it takes more than marketing when you're trying to talk technology.

xVeinx
Feb 27, 2007, 11:14 PM
In regard to the last few posts above, one of the reasons that the clock speed has seemed to stabilize compared to past architectures is the increase in cache. For instance, the degree to which a E6600 can overclock compared to a E6300 is lower. Sure, with a good board and some LN2 you can do some small wonders, but the point still remains that, generally, the E6600 won't clock quite as well. As larger cache size and different materials like halfnium dioxide are introduced into the silicon, we may see even less overclockability, or at least a mitigation of the gains that a die shrink might entail...

neon
Feb 28, 2007, 02:43 AM
Will I regret not waiting?

I've just ordered a mac mini - my ancient Dell finally died. If I waited until May I'd be stuck with just a laptop until then, which seems a long time... it's only going to get basic use anyway but someone, please, tell me I'm not making a mistake! :p

matticus008
Feb 28, 2007, 03:07 AM
Will I regret not waiting?

I've just ordered a mac mini - my ancient Dell finally died. If I waited until May I'd be stuck with just a laptop until then, which seems a long time... it's only going to get basic use anyway but someone, please, tell me I'm not making a mistake! :p
Not to worry! Any of the hypothetical future improvements discussed here are quite a ways off and would impact the Mac mini last. The current crop of products offer more than adequate performance for just about any task. Of course, with the Mac mini, you do hit some ceilings with gaming and 1080P in stock configurations (more RAM basically takes care of any 1080P problems, and you shouldn't expect a cutting edge gaming system out of the mini).

I have a Pentium D system with the GMA950 which currently has just 512MB of total system RAM which feels just as fast on the whole as either of my two A64 3500+ computers with 1-2GB of RAM each (one has a GeForce 6600/256MB and the other has an older Radeon 9000 Pro/64MB). Photoshop does bog things down, as does having too many tabs open in Firefox. With a gig of RAM, though, you'd be good to go.

DB2k
Feb 28, 2007, 03:49 AM
So my bonus arriving at the end of March could be just in time to get me a black Lepoardised iMac 24" :)

Come on the upgrades!!

BusterB
Feb 28, 2007, 01:49 PM
Yes, it is. To clarify what Rocketman said, Santa Rosa will allow the system to address more than 4GB of physical memory. Your C2D MBP does support 64-bit instructions and it does allow the addressing of more than 4GB of virtual memory, which are the essential ingredients of a 64-bit system.

C2D Chips are 64EMT chips, they take 32-bit instruction, 64- bit data. They are not true 64 bit processors.:(

AidenShaw
Feb 28, 2007, 01:59 PM
C2D Chips are 64EMT chips, they take 32-bit instruction, 64- bit data. They are not true 64 bit processors.:(

Intel® 64 architecture (formerly known as Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology, or Intel® EM64T) (http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/) certainly is true 64-bit - how do you figure that it's not?

In x64 mode, it operates on 8/16/32/64/128 bit data, using 64-bit virtual addressing.

Its 64-bit instructions operate on 64-bit integer/pointer registers. (A 64-bit instruction is one that specifies 64-bit operands - note that even a PPC970 uses 32-bit instructions. Intel® 64 instructions are from 1 to 15 bytes long, so maybe you'd claim that it's a 120-bit CPU? ;) )

Please explain your claim that Intel® 64 is not true 64-bit !

iW00t
Feb 28, 2007, 04:05 PM
There was some talk on a Linux kernel dev trac that says the EMT64 chips only support up to 48 bit memory addressing or something, and a special patch had to be released to support Intel chips.

That was from back in the days when Opteron was still a top dog and the Itanic was still sailing so things might have changed.

Intel® 64 architecture (formerly known as Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology, or Intel® EM64T) (http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/) certainly is true 64-bit - how do you figure that it's not?

In x64 mode, it operates on 8/16/32/64/128 bit data, using 64-bit virtual addressing.

Its 64-bit instructions operate on 64-bit integer/pointer registers. (A 64-bit instruction is one that specifies 64-bit operands - note that even a PPC970 uses 32-bit instructions. Intel® 64 instructions are from 1 to 15 bytes long, so maybe you'd claim that it's a 120-bit CPU? ;) )

Please explain your claim that Intel® 64 is not true 64-bit !

Freyqq
Feb 28, 2007, 04:52 PM
delayed again?

iW00t
Feb 28, 2007, 05:31 PM
delayed again?

I noticed you posting the same message on another thread.

Where did you get that info from? What is the new launch date then?

AidenShaw
Feb 28, 2007, 06:57 PM
There was some talk on a Linux kernel dev trac that says the EMT64 chips only support up to 48 bit memory addressing or something, and a special patch had to be released to support Intel chips.

That was from back in the days when Opteron was still a top dog and the Itanic was still sailing so things might have changed.

At the chip level, "special patches" are necessary for almost any significant hardware change. (Were the first Opteron dual-core chips not "true dual-core" because patches were required to see the second core? Of course not.)

No 64-bit CPU has 64 physical address lines to memory - that would be useless and a waste of resources. (A fully configured 64-bit memory system would need about 200 Gigawatts of electrical power.)

The PPC970 (also known as the G5) has 42-bit addressing, but I'm sure most people consider it to be a true 64-bit CPU (even though OSX 10.4 isn't a true 64-bit OS).

jayb2000
Mar 1, 2007, 01:42 PM
I am two of them...:D Santa Rosa + Leopard + Macbook pro in black (hopefully), Come on Steve! dont make me disappointed.


Yeah, mabye some new colors would be nice. I would love Santa Rosa + Leopard + Macbook pro in shiny orange
http://www.248am.com/images/tangerineibook.jpg

AidenShaw
Mar 1, 2007, 02:34 PM
Yeah, mabye some new colors would be nice. I would love Santa Rosa + Leopard + Macbook pro in shiny orange
http://www.248am.com/images/tangerineibook.jpg

That reminds me - I have to pick up a new toilet seat on my way home....

ThomasJefferson
Mar 1, 2007, 05:10 PM
Yeah, mabye some new colors would be nice. I would love Santa Rosa + Leopard + Macbook pro in shiny orange
http://www.248am.com/images/tangerineibook.jpg


I always wanted one of those and never got around to it ...

laravia18
Mar 1, 2007, 05:27 PM
I can't wait! Apple is making me very excited! I am actually happy that I won't be getting the money for a new computer till May now! Happy happy, joy joy!!!:)

iW00t
Mar 1, 2007, 10:31 PM
I can't wait! Apple is making me very excited! I am actually happy that I won't be getting the money for a new computer till May now! Happy happy, joy joy!!!:)

Just calm down and tell yourself nothing special is coming, that way even if Apple made yet another seemingly mediocre hardware refresh you will still be surprised.

If you've been on these boards long enough you'd lose track of the number of times when people build up these long discussions about new speculations (and mutually masturbate each other) only to have the actual hardware come out and a loud croak of disappointment sound through the land...

VicG
Mar 1, 2007, 11:41 PM
Yeh, a Santa Rosa equiped MacBook Pro, with 4GB or more RAM, an LED display, high speed 100+ GB HD, ... etc. would be nice. But the GMA X3000 w/384 MB max dynamic video memory, though a significant step up, is a bit dissappointing. I'd hope Apple would do better and include a graphic chipset that exceeds the X3000 with a more robust minimum of 512MB max dynamic video memory for their pro line. That type of set does exist. Why skimp?

Eidorian
Mar 1, 2007, 11:43 PM
Yeh, a Santa Rosa equiped MacBook Pro, with 4GB or more RAM, an LED display, high speed 100+ GB HD, ... etc. would be nice. But the GMA X3000 w/384 MB max dynamic video memory, though a significant step up, is a bit dissappointing. I'd hope Apple would do better and include a graphic chipset that exceeds the X3000 with a more robust minimum of 512MB max dynamic video memory for their pro line. That type of set does exist. Why skimp?What gave you the idea that the GMA X3000 would be in the Pro line?

DMann
Mar 2, 2007, 12:00 AM
Just calm down and tell yourself nothing special is coming, that way even if Apple made yet another seemingly mediocre hardware refresh you will still be surprised.

If you've been on these boards long enough you'd lose track of the number of times when people build up these long discussions about new speculations (and mutually masturbate each other) only to have the actual hardware come out and a loud croak of disappointment sound through the land...

Works both ways........... we were expecting an Apple phone, and Apple wen't ahead and exceeded expectations.

amycishere
Mar 2, 2007, 06:57 AM
Will I be be able to buy the Santa Rosa program in my macbook I just ordered or am I basically screwed?

netdog
Mar 2, 2007, 07:02 AM
You aren't exactly screwed, but yes, you can't retrofit Santa Rosa into your MacBook.

VicG
Mar 2, 2007, 01:12 PM
What gave you the idea that the GMA X3000 would be in the Pro line?
Jumping conclusions I suppose. Thanks for the heads up. Point taken. I should read better. The article Next Generation Intel Platform (Santa Rosa) Tracking For May does mention the GMA 3000 only in conjunction with systems using integrated graphics (Mac mini, MacBook), not the MacBook Pro. So we may be seeing a better graphics chip set in the MacBook Pros after all.:o

Eidorian
Mar 2, 2007, 01:13 PM
Jumping conclusions I suppose. Thanks for the heads up. Point taken. I should read better. The article Next Generation Intel Platform (Santa Rosa) Tracking For May does mention the GMA 3000 only in conjunction with systems using integrated graphics (Mac mini, MacBook), not the MacBook Pro. So we may be seeing a better graphics chip set in the MacBook Pros after all.:oThat sounds much more possible.

VicG
Mar 2, 2007, 01:17 PM
That sounds much more possible.

The excitement builds!:)

nateDEEZY
Mar 2, 2007, 01:22 PM
Sounds like some very inetersting news.

I'm personally waiting for the better displays/backlit as well as Santa Rosa, anything to improve the battery life on future laptops.

SeaFox
Mar 2, 2007, 03:06 PM
Will I be be able to buy the Santa Rosa program in my macbook I just ordered or am I basically screwed?

Santa Rosa isn't a piece of software. It's a specification for hardware, in this case the design and parts used in the motherboard of the machine. So I guess if it is technically possible to swap the main motherboard of the machine you could get Santa Rosa into a current design Macbook. But that would assume the battery was the same specifications, the placement of the other components (hard drive, optical drive) were the same, that the placement of the CPU and chipsets are in the same locations as the fans and vents on the existing case, that the old case even has the ability to keep the chips cool enough...

In other words, it wont be possible. Too many variables that are sure to change. On the bright side, the Macbook you just ordered will only be one (maybe two) upgrade cycles behind the new ones depending on how long it takes Apple to produce and ship a product based on the new platform, so your machine will fetch a nice price on eBay when you want to upgrade.

Sun Baked
Mar 2, 2007, 03:15 PM
That sounds much more possible.

Some people would likely want to see both the GPU and GMA 3000 used for external monitor connections in the next MacBook Pro. aka, dual external monitors.

Right now the integrated video is there, just unconnected and unusable.

Sort of a waste, but external port space can be scarce on some machines.

Multimedia
Mar 2, 2007, 06:29 PM
Some people would likely want to see both the GPU and GMA 3000 used for external monitor connections in the next MacBook Pro. aka, dual external monitors.

Right now the integrated video is there, just unconnected and unusable.

Sort of a waste, but external port space can be scarce on some machines.That's a brilliant idea. Any idea if Apple is thinking of doing this? Two externals would be dope.

Anonymous Freak
Mar 2, 2007, 06:38 PM
Some people would likely want to see both the GPU and GMA 3000 used for external monitor connections in the next MacBook Pro. aka, dual external monitors.

Right now the integrated video is there, just unconnected and unusable.

Sort of a waste, but external port space can be scarce on some machines.

I hadn't checked to be sure, but why would the MacBook Pro use the integrated graphics chipset over the discrete graphics chipset (945G vs. 945P?) Also, why, when the next chipset comes out, would they use the integrated graphics one over the discrete graphics one? It generates more heat (even when the integrated graphics aren't being used,) and incurs extra expense.

Besides, ATI's chips do support multiple external connections, if Apple and ATI/AMD choose to enable them.

As for external port space, they could replace the full-size DVI port with two mini-DVI ports, but that would mean shipping at least two adaptors. One mini-DVI-to-DVI and one mini-DVI-to-VGA. (Since the pro line currently ships with a DVI-to-VGA, I figure they would have to include the equivalent at a minimum.)

ortuno2k
Mar 2, 2007, 10:47 PM
I hope my latest rev MBP (purchased on January '07) doesn't become "obsolete" with new hardware-dependable features released by Leopard.

Manic Mouse
Mar 3, 2007, 07:59 AM
Santa Rosa Macbook with LED display and Leopard in May?

matticus008
Mar 3, 2007, 05:14 PM
Right now the integrated video is there, just unconnected and unusable.

Sort of a waste, but external port space can be scarce on some machines.
What do you base this on? Last I heard, the teardown of the MacBook Pro indicated it was using the Intel 945PM, which does not have integrated graphics. I'd be interested to know if the facts have changed.
I hope my latest rev MBP (purchased on January '07) doesn't become "obsolete" with new hardware-dependable features released by Leopard.
It won't. The only feature of Santa Rosa that even has the potential to make any other machines functionally obsolete is Shader 3.0, and the majority of Macs in use right now don't have it.

There is no way that Leopard will require anything that isn't available in currently shipping Macs.

Sun Baked
Mar 5, 2007, 04:57 AM
What do you base this on? Last I heard, the teardown of the MacBook Pro indicated it was using the Intel 945PM, which does not have integrated graphics. I'd be interested to know if the facts have changed.

And some of the teardown sites say the MacBook is using the 945PM chipset, and the iMac the 945GM chipset.

Based on Apple's history, they are likely still using the same chipset across the entire line. Unless you get a clear picture and can see for yourself.

I hadn't checked to be sure, but why would the MacBook Pro use the integrated graphics chipset over the discrete graphics chipset (945G vs. 945P?) Also, why, when the next chipset comes out, would they use the integrated graphics one over the discrete graphics one? It generates more heat (even when the integrated graphics aren't being used,) and incurs extra expense.

I'm guessing the same chipset across the board.

It is an old cost saving measure from the R&D standpoint implemented years ago, and allows them to nail some of the discount benchmarks on the quantity standpoint from Intel.

Which is likely the reason the iMac continues to use a "laptop" chipset.

If they fragment the iMac, Mini, MacBook/MacBook Pro into discrete vs. integrated laptop chipset -- the hopes of a consumer tower based on an actual desktop chipset goes downhill, as does moving the iMac to a desktop chipset.

Note: I could be wrong or right ... I'm too lazy to hunt for a clear picture of a MacBook Pro's northbridge.

The Mac Pro has a 16GB limit according to Apple and the XServe a 32GB limit -- but I don't expect them to use 2 different versions of the same chipset either. Just the way they package and market the same chipset.

tuosfan
Mar 5, 2007, 11:26 AM
Hey gang,

Long time PC user, getting ready to leave the darkside. I don't really need another computer at the moment, but something is attracting me to the MacBooks. I'm currently looking at the 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Model.

I'm not a big gamer, but as far as playing the pricing game, should I wait for the Santa Rosa's to roll out.

When do you all expect MacBooks based on the Santa Rosa will be rolled out?

Manic Mouse
Mar 5, 2007, 11:42 AM
Hey gang,

Long time PC user, getting ready to leave the darkside. I don't really need another computer at the moment, but something is attracting me to the MacBooks. I'm currently looking at the 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo Model.

I'm not a big gamer, but as far as playing the pricing game, should I wait for the Santa Rosa's to roll out.

When do you all expect MacBooks based on the Santa Rosa will be rolled out?

You should wait, there are so many good things around the corner. Not just Santa Rosa but Leopard, iLife 07 and possibly LED screens. Buying now would be a little shortsighted IMHO with so much being upgraded in the next few months. I'm in the same boat buddy, I'm dying for a MacBook, but I will wait until they upgrade to Santa Rosa and release Leopard and iLife 07.

And since you mention that you're in no particular need for a computer at the moment there's no harm in waiting.

tuosfan
Mar 5, 2007, 11:45 AM
The Core 2 Duo macbook has a decent pricepoint, I'm worried that the new ones will be out of my price range, however.. waiting would also bring the price of the current ones down...

Manic Mouse
Mar 5, 2007, 12:56 PM
The Core 2 Duo macbook has a decent pricepoint, I'm worried that the new ones will be out of my price range, however.. waiting would also bring the price of the current ones down...

The price-point of Apple products generally doesn't change with time, they just get better specs. I wouldn't expect the Santa Rosa Macbook to cost significantly more than the current one. It may even be the exact same price.

Did the price increase between the CD and C2D MacBooks? Not as far as I can remember...

Personally I've been looking at MacBooks ever since they were released. I think that when the Santa Rosa MacBook is released it will be the perfect time to buy: You get brand new hardware along with a brand new OS and suite of applications compared to if you buy today.

DMann
Mar 5, 2007, 03:02 PM
The price-point of Apple products generally doesn't change with time, they just get better specs. I wouldn't expect the Santa Rosa Macbook to cost significantly more than the current one. It may even be the exact same price.

Did the price increase between the CD and C2D MacBooks? Not as far as I can remember...

Personally I've been looking at MacBooks ever since they were released. I think that when the Santa Rosa MacBook is released it will be the perfect time to buy: You get brand new hardware along with a brand new OS and suite of applications compared to if you buy today.

That would be a home run, now wouldn't it?:p Great point!

sluthy
Mar 5, 2007, 06:01 PM
Will the first SR MBs be a possible 'Rev. A' situation? What will SR change?

CPU? I think they stick with Merom, so no real drama there
GPU? Hopefully the MBP will have discrete graphics anyway, but there shouldn't be any dramas with X3000 drivers...should there?
Is there any difference between Airport Draft-N and Intel's new WiFi chip? Do Apple even use the Intel chip?
Robson solid state HDD. Could there potentially be a heat/compatibility problem here? I think if there are any possible hardware issues, they would be here.

Just wondering.

matticus008
Mar 5, 2007, 06:19 PM
And some of the teardown sites say the MacBook is using the 945PM chipset, and the iMac the 945GM chipset.
The MacBook can't use the 945PM--no integrated graphics. The iMac with integrated graphics would have to use the 945GM. The iMac with discrete graphics also likely couldn't use the lower cost GM, because it doesn't ship with an external x16 graphics hookup, which is necessary for the ATI card.
Based on Apple's history, they are likely still using the same chipset across the entire line. Unless you get a clear picture and can see for yourself.
That wouldn't make sense. They're now using a wide availability chipset, not a custom Intrepid controller as with the PowerPC Macs. They cannot use the same products across the board--the Mac Pro uses a different chipset out of necessity and nothing on the MacBook Pro has ever suggested anything other than the 945PM, unless you have a source. They are therefore using at least 3 different chipsets.
It is an old cost saving measure from the R&D standpoint implemented years ago, and allows them to nail some of the discount benchmarks on the quantity standpoint from Intel.
Keyword "old." Integrated graphics have necessarily changed that operation. It would be wasteful to use a GM chipset in the MacBook Pro, which would require costly custom modification to connect an external PCIe graphics system. The G chipset family often lacks the high-bandwidth external expansion for real graphics slots and wouldn't be conducive to use in the MacBook Pro because it would also increase power consumption.
If they fragment the iMac, Mini, MacBook/MacBook Pro into discrete vs. integrated laptop chipset -- the hopes of a consumer tower based on an actual desktop chipset goes downhill, as does moving the iMac to a desktop chipset.
There already is separation. Multiple sources confirm that the MacBook Pro and iMac (discrete) use the 945PM while the mini, iMac (integraated), and MacBook use the 945GM. One of these sources is PC Magazine in their official iMac review.

Sun Baked
Mar 5, 2007, 06:33 PM
Hey gang,

I'm not a big gamer, but as far as playing the pricing game, should I wait for the Santa Rosa's to roll out.

When do you all expect MacBooks based on the Santa Rosa will be rolled out?

The pricing game only works on old stock where you may get a 15-20% discount on the old model, and pay about the same for the new machine. Prices tend not to change much.

---

Due to Apple's required volume, the phase in will likely begin to happen 4-8 weeks after they appear in PC notebooks.

It isn't that Apple sells a lot, they just have a single chipset concentrated in the bulk of their products making the replacement of those machines a bit more troublesome than simply introducing another new machine with one more chipset.

Sun Baked
Mar 5, 2007, 07:26 PM
There already is separation. Multiple sources confirm that the MacBook Pro and iMac (discrete) use the 945PM while the mini, iMac (integraated), and MacBook use the 945GM. One of these sources is PC Magazine in their official iMac review.

And some of the sites like kodawarisan show in enough detail to read part numbers both a 945GM and an ATI chip in the same Intel iMac, but those of course are the CoreDuo machines.

I haven't seen the new Core2Duo machines with the part numbers.

To use both makes sense, but of course this is Apple who likes to use a single core design across the board for consumer machines and notebooks.

matticus008
Mar 5, 2007, 07:40 PM
To use both makes sense, but of course this is Apple who likes to use a single core design across the board for consumer machines and notebooks.
Agreed, but I think that in this case the "single core design" is the Intel 945 reference platform. The GM and PM are after all only variants of the same northbridge and both use ICH7 southbridges. I'm 99.9% certain that the 2.16GHz C2D iMac uses the 945PM (and PC Magazine confirms it; the consensus on the MBP is also that it is 945PM) and we've clearly seen the 945GM in use elsewhere in their lineup. Ultimately, it's the same chipset and doesn't violate their standard unified practice.

rane
Mar 7, 2007, 07:35 AM
Gah.
Seeing all these estimations about Santa Rosa I can't really decide whether I should buy MacBook now or later. I'd love to get it now, not that I really need it. I'm just bit afraid of the upgrade coming in September or August as some of you have stated.

gnasher729
Mar 7, 2007, 08:53 AM
Will I be be able to buy the Santa Rosa program in my macbook I just ordered or am I basically screwed?

You are screwed. I'll give you five pounds for your worthless MacBook. Better sell it to me before it explodes because it is ashamed of having the wrong chipset.

gnasher729
Mar 7, 2007, 08:58 AM
There was some talk on a Linux kernel dev trac that says the EMT64 chips only support up to 48 bit memory addressing or something, and a special patch had to be released to support Intel chips.

48 bit memory addressing = 262,144 GB of memory.

That's over ten million dollars worth of memory even if you get memory for $40 per GB, which is a bit hard to find. Somehow I find that this limitation doesn't bother me at all.

gnasher729
Mar 7, 2007, 09:08 AM
Yes, I do understand. However, what I was referring to was having
the transistors reduced to 45 nm, in combination with the new insulating
material, would produce far less heat, thus enabling them to clock at much
higher frequencies. Heat and signal leakage have both made up the
Achilles Heal of progress on this front for some time.

And if you had read a bit more you would have seen that this is not going to happen. With the new process, the chip designer can choose whether each individual transistor runs at 20% lower speed and 5 times lower power consumption, or at same speed and same power consumption, and obviously you can fit twice as many transistors into the same space.

With no further design work, Intel can build processors with twenty percent lower speed and 5 times lower power. Or processors with twice as many cores, each core 20 percent slower (but twice as many more than makes up for that) and 2.5 times less power. With lots of redesign and carefully picking which parts to make fast and which not the slowdown can be much reduced while mostly keeping the power savings, but that is a lot of work for Intel.

Butthead
Mar 7, 2007, 08:33 PM
I hadn't checked to be sure, but why would the MacBook Pro use the integrated graphics chipset over the discrete graphics chipset (945G vs. 945P?)

They would not unless no other discrete GPU's significantly outperformed Intels offering, which they do now, so expect higher performance GPU's in MBP's, and cost savings integrated graphics in the MB, Mac mini, and some iMac's (perhaps all this round).

Also, why, when the next chipset comes out, would they use the integrated graphics one over the discrete graphics one? It generates more heat (even when the integrated graphics aren't being used,) and incurs extra expense.

More heat? How much? Higher performance GPU's general much more heat than either of Apple's current discrete or integrated solutions. It's merely a cost saving reason for using the integrated GPU (might be some minor space saving engineering cost reductions also).



Besides, ATI's chips do support multiple external connections, if Apple and ATI/AMD choose to enable them.

Apple does, what Apple does :), they don't even have an true HD res. screen on the 17in MBP, and you think they care if you don't have twin monitor capability on the portables? (rhetorical question, btw).

Hmm, so I read through the entire thread, and one thing I don't see is the typical skepticism about the source of the story. So, what if they're wrong, and SR Mac's start shipping in April (thought I think Think Secret is just grasping at thin air when they postulate about an HD screen 17in MBP annoucement at NAB)? Or there wrong and they start shipping (not just Apple) in June, when the chipset group finally is available in numbers. I would think every manufacturer will try to ship as soon as quantity is available.

Lets hope the next update to the MBP line includes a 160GB 7.2k drive option, like the one annouced by Fujitsu recently.

So the 45nm process is running a little ahead of schedule, or is right on time. Then we could see a MBP update to this by MWSF or earlier? Kind of makes you want to wait on buying any upgrade until then, unless you really, really need that SR chipset upgrade (assuming there are not many more irresistable hardware enhancements). If claims (recall the Merom was supposed to use less power) about 45nm process come to fruition, then you'd have a very significant longer run-time for the same clock rates.

Manic Mouse
Mar 8, 2007, 03:03 AM
I would like to see an upgrade in screen res on the portable line. My 3 year old 15.4inch DELL laptop has a 1650*1050 screen which the MacBook Pro still can't compete with.

PCMacUser
Mar 8, 2007, 04:11 AM
I would like to see an upgrade in screen res on the portable line. My 3 year old 15.4inch DELL laptop has a 1650*1050 screen which the MacBook Pro still can't compete with.

Yep, I hear ya. Even my 15" work laptop has a 1920*1200 resolution. It's long overdue for Apple to come to the party in that respect...

jmyers0341
Mar 8, 2007, 08:44 AM
Just as I bought my new MBP... awesome. Same thing happened when I bought my last iMac... the iSight/FrontRow version came out literally 15 days later... :mad:

Evangelion
Mar 9, 2007, 06:09 AM
Just as I bought my new MBP... awesome. Same thing happened when I bought my last iMac... the iSight/FrontRow version came out literally 15 days later... :mad:

relax, Santa Rosa isn't due for few months. Or did you really expect that Intel/Apple would not release a new amd improved product now that you have bought your computer? Fact is that we will see improved computer rougly twice a year or so. Get used to it. Of course you could just wait for the "next improved model", but you would be waiting forever.

Simon R.
Mar 9, 2007, 07:21 AM
Hmm, so I read through the entire thread, and one thing I don't see is the typical skepticism about the source of the story. So, what if they're wrong, and SR Mac's start shipping in April (thought I think Think Secret is just grasping at thin air when they postulate about an HD screen 17in MBP annoucement at NAB)?

There is soooo much unfounded speculation inhere - it almost makes me laugh :) "When will Leopard be out?": "March", "April", "May", "August", "2008". Oh.. great. Very clever and highly informed sources :D

I too am looking to buy a MacBook to carry on me when travelling so I can still do work if I need to. I am going on vacation in july. So, according to most "sources" here, I will be able to buy a new one with the new CPU in may or june at the very latest. But you know what? I don't believe it. The chipset is expected to ship in may. So my conservative guess is we will see new MacBook during fall. Let's see who is right when we get to september 1st :) Not that I HOPE I am right. I would love to get one before july, but I don't believe it.

tuosfan
Mar 9, 2007, 02:25 PM
considering that macs are being sold next to other pc's at circuit city and best buy, i'd say they hafta stay on top of the game, wouldn't you?

no, considering circuit city and best buy don't sell apples

weldon
Mar 9, 2007, 02:46 PM
no, considering circuit city and best buy don't sell apples
Best Buy sells them in some locations and Circuity City sells them on their website.

siefrat@barak.n
Mar 11, 2007, 09:32 AM
Can someone please tell me what this really means? I don't play games (well, except for word games); our kids do, but they're only 10. I'm about to order 5 iMacs, which is a heck of a lot of money, and I want to know whether or not it makes sense to wait, that is, will we be getting anything fantastic if we wait?

And if it is "tracking for May" what does that mean? When will it actually be in the hands of consumers?

Thanks!

susan

matticus008
Mar 11, 2007, 04:57 PM
Can someone please tell me what this really means? I don't play games (well, except for word games); our kids do, but they're only 10. I'm about to order 5 iMacs, which is a heck of a lot of money, and I want to know whether or not it makes sense to wait, that is, will we be getting anything fantastic if we wait?
What kind of computer are they using now for games? Santa Rosa is an evolutionary update which ultimately doesn't amount to much for the bulk of end users. It does signify a repositioning of products--it gives them a new place to go since they are now seeing the "red line" of some current technologies.

It would be wise, in my opinion, to get at least one of those five iMacs with an ATi graphics card in case your kids do start playing more demanding games in the next couple years. Generally speaking though, the only reason to consider waiting is for Leopard, but since that could be three months away still, you should buy based on your current needs, not on future projections.

And if it is "tracking for May" what does that mean? When will it actually be in the hands of consumers?
It means that they're anticipating being able to put these products into fabrication in May. There could be (and often are) delays, long or short, and retail channel availability varies. They will almost certainly be available in OEM trays before Apple products with them ship. The bottom line is that the only certain thing is that there will not be an iMac with Santa Rosa before May or June, but also probably not after July, if it really does launch in May as planned.

Multimedia
Mar 11, 2007, 05:41 PM
Can someone please tell me what this really means? I don't play games (well, except for word games); our kids do, but they're only 10. I'm about to order 5 iMacs, which is a heck of a lot of money, and I want to know whether or not it makes sense to wait, that is, will we be getting anything fantastic if we wait?

And if it is "tracking for May" what does that mean? When will it actually be in the hands of consumers?

Thanks!

susan5 x $129 = $645 for all the Leopards
5 x $129 = $645 for all the iLife '07s

Total $1290 saved by waiting.

No quesiton you wait to buy 5 iMacs until after Leopard and iLife '07 are shipping with them. And you should wait for the next refresh to get latest hardware no matter what you can't see why now.

TheAnswer
Mar 11, 2007, 05:45 PM
5 x $129 = $645 for all the Leopards
5 x $129 = $645 for all the iLife '07s

Total $1290 saved by waiting.

Well, they could buy the family pack upgrades and reduce the savings to just
$199+$99=$298 total.

Val-kyrie
Mar 11, 2007, 06:48 PM
Please note that there is a difference between the Intel GMA 3000 and the GMA x3000. Some forum members are not distinguishing between the two. Let's hope that Apple chooses quality (X3000) over price and poorer performance (3000) for their integrated graphics.

Eidorian
Mar 11, 2007, 08:04 PM
Please note that there is a difference between the Intel GMA 3000 and the GMA x3000. Some forum members are not distinguishing between the two. Let's hope that Apple chooses quality (X3000) over price and poorer performance (3000) for their integrated graphics.It seems that the X3000 is going to be the standard for the Santa Rosa platform.

matticus008
Mar 11, 2007, 08:14 PM
Total $1290 saved by waiting.

Not at all. Family packs are designed for this exact scenario, and if you're not planning on upgrading right away in any case, it's a moot point. Delaying your purchase by 3 months based on anticipation is foolish if you need new machines right away. If current products meet your needs, there's no reason not to buy. There will always be better products mere weeks away.

It never pays to put off purchases more than a few weeks unless you don't actually need to make the purchase in the first place.

siefrat@barak.n
Mar 12, 2007, 02:40 AM
What kind of computer are they using now for games? Santa Rosa is an evolutionary update which ultimately doesn't amount to much for the bulk of end users.
It would be wise, in my opinion, to get at least one of those five iMacs with an ATi graphics card in case your kids do start playing more demanding games in the next couple years. The bottom line is that the only certain thing is that there will not be an iMac with Santa Rosa before May or June, but also probably not after July, if it really does launch in May as planned.

Thanks to everyone for responding. We are upgrading the iMacs with an upgraded video card and 2 gig ram. The children are playing some internet stuff and packaged games as well. They are only 10, and aren't into what I assume would be called "heavy" gaming on line. Mostly they love SIMS which doesn't work on their current PCs because they are so old. We've also just bought a Star Trek game that doesn't work on anything but we don't know why. That's about as heavy as it gets, for the moment.

We're getting them iMacs because they want the video, cartoon making, all the neat stuff they can do creatively on the Mac, but they need the PC end for some games and for the Hebrew Word for school.

I've given up worrying about Leopard and iLife; we'll just buy the family packs and be done with it. But when we heard about hardware changes . . .

Anyway, will this upgraded card and 2 gig ram be sufficient?

Thanks!

susan

Much Ado
Mar 12, 2007, 02:37 PM
While we're on the subject of Graphics Cards (of which i know very little) how long will it be before i really start to notice my iMac's x600 XT struggling to keep up with Apple's nice but somewhat superfluous effects?

How does it comapre to the current iMac and Macbook set-ups, for example? Is an Intel integrated doo-dah better or worse?

I presume it will be fine for applications for at least a couple of years yet...

MA.

mrgreen4242
Mar 12, 2007, 03:00 PM
While we're on the subject of Graphics Cards (of which i know very little) how long will it be before i really start to notice my iMac's x600 XT struggling to keep up with Apple's nice but somewhat superfluous effects?

How does it comapre to the current iMac and Macbook set-ups, for example? Is an Intel integrated doo-dah better or worse?

I presume it will be fine for applications for at least a couple of years yet...

MA.

Well, the current talk is that the x3000 will perform somewhere around an ATI x1300 (how that compares to the x600 I'll leave as an exercise for you and Google :P). That said, for just UI stuff the x600 should maintain it's usability through 10.5 at least, so you've got a few years I would guess.

That said there's no way to know what Leopard will ultimately require from the hardware, but Apple's track record on making sure older equipment runs the newest software at least reasonably well (and often better than the older version) is good so I wouldn't worry to much. I'm betting even the GMA950 (current really low end GPU in the Mac mini) will handle all/most of Leopards UI effects just fine, so you'll be in the clear!

Eidorian
Mar 12, 2007, 10:59 PM
http://www.gadgetell.com/2007/03/rumor-centrino-pro-to-be-released-may-8th-2007/

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/03/12/intel_releases_robson/

Shaker
Mar 13, 2007, 08:05 AM
Thanks to everyone for responding. We are upgrading the iMacs with an upgraded video card and 2 gig ram. The children are playing some internet stuff and packaged games as well. They are only 10, and aren't into what I assume would be called "heavy" gaming on line. Mostly they love SIMS which doesn't work on their current PCs because they are so old. We've also just bought a Star Trek game that doesn't work on anything but we don't know why. That's about as heavy as it gets, for the moment.

We're getting them iMacs because they want the video, cartoon making, all the neat stuff they can do creatively on the Mac, but they need the PC end for some games and for the Hebrew Word for school.

I've given up worrying about Leopard and iLife; we'll just buy the family packs and be done with it. But when we heard about hardware changes . . .

Anyway, will this upgraded card and 2 gig ram be sufficient?

Thanks!

susan

You should be more than fine for the needs that you describe. Enjoy you new Mac.

andiwm2003
Mar 13, 2007, 10:03 AM
i haven't read all of the thread so i apologize if this was covered already.

one of the advantages of the santa rosa platform is the robson caching. but is this with HDD based on flash memory any advantage. right now you can buy a 32GB HD based on flash for ~300 bucks. in 6 month you should be able to get a 80GB flash based HD for that price. then you just put that one in your notebook and robson caching is obsolete. is that correct?

http://www.sandisk.com/Oem/Default.aspx?CatID=1478

weldon
Mar 13, 2007, 12:54 PM
I'd still rather have a 200GB drive with 8GB cache for $300.

andiwm2003
Mar 13, 2007, 01:10 PM
I'd still rather have a 200GB drive with 8GB cache for $300.

i agree it's way more expensive. but my question goes towards upgrading a current MBP in let's say a year or two. by then you would get a performance boost for 300 dollar. (i'm hoping that the flash based drives go down in price quickly and a 120GB for that price would be available).

the question is how much faster are those solid state drives compared to 5400 or 7200 drives. would it be worthwile to do this?

Eidorian
Mar 17, 2007, 08:02 PM
http://insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=14792

A little old but worth noting about the X3000's power if the hardware features are enabled.

localoid
Mar 17, 2007, 10:03 PM
... one of the advantages of the santa rosa platform is the robson caching. ...

While everyone's dreaming about 1TB flash drives that cost $19.98, the reality is that Intel's Robson technology during 2007 will likely be limited to Robson 1GB and 512MB sized components, with 2GB not expected to be available before later in the year. That said, these seemingly small-sized units won't be as limiting as most would think, as they can be used quite effectively as the home for the OS and other file that don't change often and give real-world boost in boot time and execution time. Probably the 2x performance increase (in some things) that Intel is claiming is in the ballpark...

localoid
Mar 17, 2007, 10:20 PM
http://insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=14792

A little old but worth noting about the X3000's power if the hardware features are enabled.

Although the X3000 has been available for a few months (in desktop form), it still seems to be a work in progress. That said, it seems to offer real promise as a viable onboard 3D graphics solution compared to previous geneations. One of the little interesting things to surface at CeBIT this week was apparently a motherboard with a newly-created 945 chipset (for desktop cpus) by Intel that was able to use a x3000 onboard, apparently as a "technology stretcher" allowing older components to be used with the newer tech. Will there be a red-haired stepchild version of this 945 for Intel's current mobile (Socket M) cpus? And if so, will it matter to any of Apple's line? I guess time will tell... :)

Ice642
Mar 18, 2007, 05:35 PM
http://insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=14792

A little old but worth noting about the X3000's power if the hardware features are enabled.

Just found pics of what I understand was this test session showing off the new beta drivers and what the X3000 is capable of.

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/03/08/gdc2007_intel_g965_integratedgraphics/

Note: This is running on the desktop version of the X3000 not Santa Rosa, But I think the Santa Rosa G965 (X3000) will have improved specs.

Also another article about this can be found here:

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3555&article=Intel+G965

Eidorian
Mar 18, 2007, 05:42 PM
I agree that the GMA X3000 is a work in progress. Intel provided hardware support but hasn't enabled it via drivers yet. The Beta drivers offer great performance for being an integrated solution.

Cojack
Apr 19, 2007, 08:42 PM
Hey, I looked at Buyer's Guide and counted when the macbook is supposedly to be upgraded. And guess what?...... For that Santa Rosa thing...... The Day od Upgrade hits right on Memorial Day..... So I would keep waiting until memorial day if i were you

scrambledwonder
Apr 21, 2007, 11:55 PM
Okay, so according to Intel's site, Santa Rosa's Robson flash technolgy can literally halve application load time and other system functions. A dramatic improvement in everyday power. More so than any graphics card, actually. BUT there's no mention of OS X. All the literature states that these advantages are with Vista, with special features built into the OS. So, does that mean that we should expect a Robson patch in June or July for Tiger? Or will we have to wait for Leopard in October to see the real benefits of Robson tech?

Also, I've ready that SSD (solid-state drives) are coming down in price. If so, in a year or so, a 128GB SSD could be available. So then what is the point of Robson? Wouldn't the SSD basically provide the same performance boost, even a better performance boost? And why wouldn't you just be able to buy a SSD and put in in your 2006 MacBook? Then you'd have a MacBook with all the performance benefits of Robson, right?

h110283
Apr 22, 2007, 04:39 AM
I'm new to the macworld but i've had my eye on the MBP for a while now. Like most of you I've been waiting for Santa Rosa to pick one up, but now im hearing of the Montevina Platform. Is WiMaX going to be the next big thing? If so, will santa rosa mean im stuck with out it, or would there be any way to make WiMaX compatible? What other major improvements would it be capable of? All knowledge would be greatly appreciated...

jonutarr
Apr 22, 2007, 09:27 AM
Yep, I'll be getting a MacBook with an x3000 and Leopard this may, can't wait!:D

Double that order ;)

MacBass
Apr 22, 2007, 10:49 AM
Just as I bought my new MBP... awesome. Same thing happened when I bought my last iMac... the iSight/FrontRow version came out literally 15 days later... :mad:

I hear you, I bought my maxed out iBook G3 900 MHz roughly 2 weeks before the PowerMac G5 was released. I was pretty miffed.

Rocketman
Apr 22, 2007, 12:16 PM
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070417supp.htm

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070417corp_a.htm?iid=search

http://www.intel.com/products/mid/ultramobile2007.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/laptop/index.htm?iid=prod+prod_laptop

http://www.intel.com/products/laptop/chipsets/index.htm?iid=laptop_body+chips

I hope these links are helpful.

Rocketman

Kashchei
Apr 22, 2007, 12:59 PM
The jump from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo didn't turn out to be that big of a jump. How big of a leap does Santa Rosa represent over the Core 2 Duo? The expected use of X3000 will certainly be welcome, especially with Leopard's Core Animation. What about clock speed, cache, etc and how this all adds up in real performance gains?

daveL
Apr 22, 2007, 01:19 PM
The jump from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo didn't turn out to be that big of a jump. How big of a leap does Santa Rosa represent over the Core 2 Duo? The expected use of X3000 will certainly be welcome, especially with Leopard's Core Animation. What about clock speed, cache, etc and how this all adds up in real performance gains?

Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are processor lines. Santa Rosa is a mobile chipset / platform. The current MB and MBP use the Napa mobile chipset / platform, although they both have their own wifi chip and MBP has a discreet graphics chip. the C2D mobile processors work with both Napa and Santa Rosa.

Sped
Apr 22, 2007, 05:04 PM
All the literature states that these advantages are with Vista, with special features built into the OS. So, does that mean that we should expect a Robson patch in June or July for Tiger? Or will we have to wait for Leopard in October to see the real benefits of Robson tech?


I have been thinking about that question as well. I'm doubtful that Apple would release hardware without the appropriate software to make use of said hardware. Since Leopard is delayed, that makes me think Apple may delay incorporating Santa Rosa into its products similar to the delay for C2D (although I don't think software had anything to do with that delay). Hopefully that's not the case.