Intel Merom (64-bit Mobile Processor) Due in September?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TGDaily reports (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/11/merom_to_be_launched_in_september/) that Intel is on track to release the next generation mobile processor known as "Merom" in September of this year.

The Merom processor is reported to launch at 2.33 GHz and bring 64-bit capability to the mobile platform.

According to the article, Apple was reportedly interested in using Merom for the Intel transition, but its late delivery timeframe pushed Apple towards using the recently released Core Duo which now powers the Mac mini, iMac and MacBook Pro.

Meanwhile, Intel's next generation desktop processor (Conroe (http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/02/09/intel_desktop_roadmap_feb_06/)) is expected in Q3 2006. Apple still has to transition the PowerMac, Xserve, iBook and PowerBook 12"/17" to the Intel processors.

More details may come from Intel's Developer Forum (http://www.intel.com/idf/) conference which starts tomorrow. The previous (Aug 2005) roadmap (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/08/20050823140931.shtml) showed which processors Intel was planning to release in 2005/2006.

[iGary]

Looks like September/October for the PM.

[Chaszmyr]

I'm really looking forward to seeing Conroe in action with pro apps.

[AppleCareWorker]

hey Dee Dee Dee the 15 is Done already . I think you ment to say 12/17

[fixed]

[Seasought]

Can't wait all of the panic-induced "should I sell my current macbook/powerbook/whatever for the new Macs?" threads.

:D

[macEfan]

well, if they are good, lets see them in macs! Intel is always introduceing something new these days.

[d_and_n5000]

Great. I'd wager roundabout October to transition the MacBook Pro's. Then the Macbooks/iBooks and Mac mini's can get to full Core Duo speed and such, which means yay for me!:D

[yankeefan24]

too late for me. oh well. maybe eventually i will have one for myself.

really, i was hoping earlier, but september isn't that bad. They just miss the back to school market.

[nicksoper]

Apple still has to transition the PowerMac, Xserve, iBook and PowerBook 12"/17" to the Intel processors.

Do you think that was written in any particular order of which system is being upgraded first?

I know the answer is no, but it's worth wondering which systems they will be updating first. And why. Anyone care to speculate?

Nicko

[Chef Medeski]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TGDaily reports (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/11/merom_to_be_launched_in_september/) that Intel is on track to release the next generation mobile processor known as "Merom" in September of this year.

The Merom processor is reported to launch at 2.33 GHz and bring 64-bit capability to the mobile platform.

Yonah - notebook chip. 1st half of 2006.
Merom - notebook chip coming in the second half of 2006. 5 watts (vs 22 in today's chips)
Wait, so let me get this straight. We will have a MacBook Pro in September-November that has nearly four times the battery life, 64-bit, and 2.33 GHz. Are you serious? This is amazing. Is that true? Am I making the right assumptions here?

I'm definitely waiting to buy that!

[WildCowboy]

"Apple still has to transition the PowerMac, Xserve, iBook and PowerBook 12"/17" to the Intel processors."

Do you think that was written in any particular order of which system is being upgraded first?

I know the answer is problably no, but it's worth wondering which systems they will be updating first. And why. Anyone care to speculate?

Nicko

That sentence was written by arn...so the answer would be "no."

[bigandy]

mmm tempting to wait for that instead of plumping for a macbook...

[gunm]

Whoo, can't wait for Sept/Oct when the new Macbook Pros w/Merom are released. I have no idea how I'm going to afford one, though... :o

[WildCowboy]

Wait, so let me get this straight. We will have a MacBook Pro in September-November that has nearly four times the battery life, 64-bit, and 2.33 GHz. Are you serious? This is amazing. Is that true? Am I making the right assumptions here?

I'm definitely waiting to buy that!

I think that was a typo in the original article. Here (http://www.ourmedia.org/node/177689) is a recent article quoting Merom at 25W.

And by the way, the chip power requirements are only part of the equation. Even if the chip used one-fourth the watts of a predecessor, there are lots of other things sucking up power that contribute to the machine's battery life.

[mrdeep]

Wait, so let me get this straight. We will have a MacBook Pro in September-November that has nearly four times the battery life, 64-bit, and 2.33 GHz. Are you serious? This is amazing. Is that true? Am I making the right assumptions here?

I'm definitely waiting to buy that!

Battery life will probably not be four times better, the processor may use 1/4th the power, but the hard drive, cd drive, display (the 3 big power users) will probably use about the same.

[PlaceofDis]

makes you wonder if the current MBP are just a stop-gap solution to the end of the G4 and wait for the Merom chips late in the year.

[d.perel]

Whoo, can't wait for Sept/Oct when the new Macbook Pros w/Merom are released. I have no idea how I'm going to afford one, though... :o


really.... 64-bit apple laptop with new intel processor... who can say $3000 and negative two hours battery life?

[t1mmy]

just goes to show it's physcially impossible to stay on top of techonology. just bought my first laptop (macbook) and so far so good. Unless the processer speed is significantly increased, might just stick with what I have.

[PlaceofDis]

really.... 64-bit apple laptop with new intel processor... who can say $3000 and negative two hours battery life?

um? intel mobile processers are some of the best at keeping power consumption levels down. high end apple laptops do cost a lot. but definately wrong there on the battery life. please don't troll.

[PtMD]

Wait, so let me get this straight. We will have a MacBook Pro in September-November that has nearly four times the battery life, 64-bit, and 2.33 GHz. Are you serious? This is amazing. Is that true? Am I making the right assumptions here?

I'm definitely waiting to buy that!

No unfortunately, the CPU while a major drain isn’t the only power hungry device. Memory, GPU, Display, media, they all suck power... That said, we should still see substantial increases in battery life.

[Stridder44]

And to think one day I'll be stairing at the new XServes with (Woodcrest?). *shudder of joy*


Until then, hopefully they get things perfect with the MacBooks (ibook replacer) so I can get one!

[e-clipse]

mmm tempting to wait for that instead of plumping for a macbook...

This makes my wait to purchase a little easier. The timing is great, since I am making my purchase for my fall 2006 semester. Woohoo! :D

[bigbossbmb]

makes you wonder if the current MBP are just a stop-gap solution to the end of the G4 and wait for the Merom chips late in the year.

that is EXACTLY what they are...and exactly why i'm waiting til MacWorld 07, my powerbook will last til then :D :

13.3" Widescreen MBP w/ a Merom proc and OS X 10.5 Leopard pre-installed

[nagromme]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that compared to the Intel timetable being discussed last year, Merom and Conroe have now swapped places.

Originally Merom was expected first, sometime in Q3 or Q4, and Conroe was expected to FOLLOW Merom.

But now Conroe has been moved up to Q3, while Merom will now follow Conroe--around the end of Q3.

Since laptops already have Intel chips, that's good news in my book. Get the Intel PowerMacs on their way!

[joshysquashy]

I dont know about you lot, but I am starting to see a reason for switching to intel.

I was skeptical at first but it does seem that they are increasing specifications at an alarming rate, when compared to PowerPC which as far as I know has not progressed much at all?

I do hope that after this transition is complete Apple is not constantly updating things, its nice to have the latest technology at least for a few months! :rolleyes:

[Detlev_73]

This

Wait, so let me get this straight. We will have a MacBook Pro in September-November that has nearly four times the battery life, 64-bit, and 2.33 GHz. Are you serious? This is amazing. Is that true? Am I making the right assumptions here?

I'm definitely waiting to buy that!

[nagromme]

makes you wonder if the current MBP are just a stop-gap solution to the end of the G4 and wait for the Merom chips late in the year.
Any computer is a "stopgap" if something better is in the pipeline.

Something better always is, and always will be, in the pipeline.

Therefore, EVERY computer is a "stopgap."

Wait for Merom and by then the news of quad-core laptop chips will be buzzing. There's always something better coming, so all you can do is:

* Figure out when you really need a new system. What will it do for you? Can you accept giving that up by waiting?

* Don't buy at the end of a cycle--the "last of the old"--unless you get a good price.

[pacohaas]

Intel links:
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/ngma/index.htm
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050824corp.htm
http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/power-challenge-1005.htm

[plinkoman]

well, it's good to know they're staying on track. http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emthup.gif

[Detlev_73]

This means major gripes from people who will likely say something along the lines of, "But they just introduced it 6 months ago! Wah, wah, wah. I feel jipped."

Yawn-yawn-yawn. Mark my words, there will probably be major gripes along this line. Also, I know what some people may say to this positive attitude: "Yeah, but they're right to feel jipped." Moot point: remember Moore's Law?

I congratulate you as looking at this as a positive, not a negative. Thank God that speeds increase the way they do, otherwise we'd still be in the days of ENIAC.

Wait, so let me get this straight. We will have a MacBook Pro in September-November that has nearly four times the battery life, 64-bit, and 2.33 GHz. Are you serious? This is amazing. Is that true? Am I making the right assumptions here?

I'm definitely waiting to buy that!

[yoda13]

This is great news. My 1.5 ghz 15" Powerbook will hold out until fall. I really want a 64 bit dual core laptop. When that comes out I will take the plunge and get a MacBookPro:D

Looks like it might be time then to also look into upgrading my Quicksilver PowerMac to a new Intel PowerMac...whatever its called. Damn...I wonder what I can sell so that I can afford both?:rolleyes: :eek: :confused: :D

[DJTJ]

Quad core
single die 8 MB, 16 MB shared Early 2008

YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[emaja]

This means major gripes from people who will likely say something along the lines of, "But they just introduced it 6 months ago! Wah, wah, wah. I feel jipped."

I congratulate you as looking at this as a positive, not a negative. Thank God that speeds increase the way they do, otherwise we'd still be in the days of ENIAC.

I am glad that at least one person has the sense to see this as a good thing. I can see it coming where the "where is my PB update" is replaced with the whiney "but I just bought it and now there's something better" thread.

Nagromme also hit it on the head when posting that all computers are stop-gaps. There is always something faster and cheaper inthe pipeline and that is a good - no make that great - thing.

I tell people everyday that the only measure of a computer's worth is whether it does what you need it to do. All of our needs are different and what is best for me is not what is best for someone else.

[smokeyboi]

uhm...reports are actually saying that merom is delayed until Q4 or early 2007!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29563

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29605

[longofest]

Quad core
single die 8 MB, 16 MB shared Early 2008

YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I already have a quad-core machine ;) Only 8MB total though of Cache... its called the G5 Quad... you may have heard of it...

[longofest]

uhm...reports are actually saying that merom is delayed until Q4 or early 2007!

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29563

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29605

those reports are based off of Digitimes reports. Digitimes has the WORST record when it comes to reporting, so basically you can throw it out.

Although, the quoted article for the MacRumors submission is a month old... kinda wondering why it just all of the sudden appeared here.

[iHeartTheApple]

I do hope that after this transition is complete Apple is not constantly updating things, its nice to have the latest technology at least for a few months! :rolleyes:

Yeah, so that's my concern, too. Coming from a PC background, I'm fully aware of the alarming rate at which CPU technology is upgraded. This is really my only concern with regard to the Apple line of intel compies. Is Apple going to try to keep up with Intel? If so, does that mean our resale value will fall through the floor sooner/at all?

Going along with this thought...Does this announcement mean that the new MacBookPros, iMacs, and Mini's will be switched to Merom this year or early next year? :eek: :( It's going to be rough trying to keep up...*buckles seat belt* :D

[iHeartTheApple]

I tell people everyday that the only measure of a computer's worth is whether it does what you need it to do. All of our needs are different and what is best for me is not what is best for someone else.

Good point...that's all that counts.

[Felldownthewell]

64-bit dual core laptops @ 2.33ghz sound great, but will that make for a huge percentage increase over the core duo? I read somewhere that it is up to 30% more power, but is that just a guess?

Not to be one of those "should I wait people," but I plan on getting the MBP in April because I think it is right for me. The only reason I would wait would be a SIGNIFIGANT battery life (7hrs+) increase or a MAJOR boost in processor power (30-40% more powerful than the 2.0ghz core duo). Is there any real way to know, or do we just have to wait until intel tells us?

[Legacy]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TGDaily reports (http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/11/merom_to_be_launched_in_september/) that Intel is on track to release the next generation mobile processor known as "Merom" in September of this year.

The Merom processor is reported to launch at 2.33 GHz and bring 64-bit capability to the mobile platform.

According to the article, Apple was reportedly interested in using Merom for the Intel transition, but its late delivery timeframe pushed Apple towards using the recently released Core Duo which now powers the Mac mini, iMac and MacBook Pro.

Meanwhile, Intel's next generation desktop processor (Conroe (http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/02/09/intel_desktop_roadmap_feb_06/)) is expected in Q3 2006. Apple still has to transition the PowerMac, Xserve, iBook and PowerBook 12"/17" to the Intel processors.

More details may come from Intel's Developer Forum (http://www.intel.com/idf/) conference which starts tomorrow. The previous (Aug 2005) roadmap (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/08/20050823140931.shtml) showed which processors Intel was planning to release in 2005/2006.

Great news, I'm sure this means we should be expecting stuff from Apple by December and that hopefully means brand spanking MB Pro's. I'm waiting out on this one...when they do a 2Ghz Merom for $1999 my credit card jumps out of the wallet :D

[Apple Corps]

makes you wonder if the current MBP are just a stop-gap solution to the end of the G4 and wait for the Merom chips late in the year.

Yes - there was much speculation that Yonah would have a short remaining future - Apple had to do something with the PB line.

I purchased a stock 2.0 MBP but returned it due to the inverter board noise problem. Merom development is way ahead of schedule and AMD's announcements today will keep the heat on Intel to produce. Yonah utilized two independent processors communicating through a bus on the chip. AMD will be shipping a fully integrated dual core chip that communicates on chip at full chip rated speed. Thus - Intel will keep the throttle full forward due to AMD's progress. Now then - will Apple release a Rev B Yonah around mid September? - Me thinks not - Merom will be the logical choice and brings some impressive improvements to the table. Apple will want to use the latest Intel releases now that the PPC vs Intel thing is less relevant - kind of like an Apples to Apples comparison:)

All said - I was planning to purchase another MBP in a couple of months when all of the reported issues are resolved and the inventory has been "cleared". But with the Merom development so far ahead of schedule I'll just add a few more months and get the Merom based MBP (and deal with whatever issues it has).

[Chef Medeski]

This makes my wait to purchase a little easier. The timing is great, since I am making my purchase for my fall 2006 semester. Woohoo! :D
Same here. I just bought a 1.5 GHz 12" Pb at the beginning of this school year, but next year I want something bigger, but I wasn't about to put down money on technology that hasn't changed greatly in 1-2 years. I mean the biggest jump has been from 1.4 Ghz a year ago to 2.16 Ghz today, while that is huge, it isn't assisted by a jump in HD Size, Form Factor, Battery Life. So, its not that different of a computer.

Yet, I was just thinking about all the new technologies buzzing around.
Merom Processor
64-Bit Technology
Touch Screens
LCD Keyboards
Much Longer Batteries
Hybrid HDDs with RAM in them
Pre-N Wireless

Now if a new Powerbook came out by end of summer with even half that technology, I would be thrilled; it would be a huge, yet understandable leap in laptop technology that would actually make me say its worth $2,000 or $3,000. Just picture these specs:

2.33 Ghz Dual-Core 64-Bit Processor
2 GB RAM, most likely even faster versions.
Energy efficient 150-200 GB HDs with 8-12 GB of RAM
A Touch Screen or a OLED Energy-Efficeint screen
LCD Keyboard
Dual Boot with Vista or Linux
802.11n Wireless with colossal range
Battery with 5-8 Hrs
And of course MagSafe charging port
Dual-DVI output, for triple screen action(ok dreaming)

But, this would completely redefine how a laptop would work. I mean most college students like to think they blur the line between normal laptop usage because of the flexibility they exercise with laptops, but its an allusion. The wireless range still makes it hard to get connection in many places, the battery often has to be charged after a measly 3-4 Hrs, which isn't good enough for any roaming gnome. The processor speed clearly impedes most application swiftness unless on full battery eating for breakfast "Better Performance" mode. And many people can't even fit their whole iPod collection along with personal documents onto a laptop unless they have the heavyweight 120 GB laptop, which only so far has trickled down into portable laptops.

But, ohh the possibilities of a laptop on steroids meaning more processor and battery, even if it isn't coming with an innovative device such as Tablet PCs. I would love a Mac Tablet PC, but I'll tell you instead of dreaming; being realistic means a laptop like that to me. Ohh I nearly forgot OS X.5, now that will be one hell of an upgrade to counter Vista. Apples got stuff cooking and I'll tell you that Intel Chip seems to be right in the middle of the kitchen, burning up a storm just like Apple did to that Intel guy in that commercial.

[corbin_a2]

Looks like September/October for the PM.


Will we see another PM G5 before this?

[runninmac]

So what one do you think will go in the iMac?

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I don't wonder about that, I feel pretty confident. Apple will do redesign later and add features once they've fully transitioned and some large SW makers on on board. Maybe see Office or CS3 debut at the same time to make it a must buy.

makes you wonder if the current MBP are just a stop-gap solution to the end of the G4 and wait for the Merom chips late in the year.

[jbernie]

The delay is not a bad thing, it gives Apple a perfect upgrade chip, even a delay of an extra month or so won't hurt Apple as it can roll them out for the christmas shopping spree.

[davetrow1997]

Going back to 32bit seemed like a step backwards.. I'm in for an upgrade once Apple is back to the 64bit architecture.. Leave it to SJ to make a step sideways seem like a step forward..

:cool:

[Catfish_Man]

Going back to 32bit seemed like a step backwards.. I'm in for an upgrade once Apple is back to the 64bit architecture.. Leave it to SJ to make a step sideways seem like a step forward..

:cool:

Going from slow-as-hell 32 bit* to fast 32 bit is a step sideways? You've got your priorities waaaaay out of order, man. Yeah, having >4GB of ram in a laptop would be cool and all, but it's not something most people will do anytime soon (nor is there room in most laptops for that many slots).

*specifically talking about the laptops here. The iMac is more debatable, although again, it doesn't have enough slots for >4GB anyway

[Fabio_gsilva]

Completely off topic, but I'm working lae now and I'm facing a littel problem: how can a type especial caracteres like é, í, ó, ü, ã, etc, using Word 2004, in capital letters??

Now, when I try it, i just see ´E, ´I, etc....

Sorry for bothering
Thanks in advance...

[Felldownthewell]

Going from slow-as-hell 32 bit* to fast 32 bit is a step sideways? You've got your priorities waaaaay out of order, man. Yeah, having >4GB of ram in a laptop would be cool and all, but it's not something most people will do anytime soon (nor is there room in most laptops for that many slots).

*specifically talking about the laptops here. The iMac is more debatable, although again, it doesn't have enough slots for >4GB anyway

So besides 64-bit based software and more possible RAM, does 64-bit capabilities make the chip any faster, or does that depend just on clock speed/cache speed/FSB speed?

[macdong]

Can't wait all of the panic-induced "should I sell my current macbook/powerbook/whatever for the new Macs?" threads.

:D

man, check out the posts following yours.
you are dead on :D

[ChrisA]

Why does anyone want a 64-bit notebook? With Intel X86 architecture the only thing "64-bit" adds is the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM. Unless you actually install and use 8GB or 16GB in the notebook the 64-bit stuff is usless. Not much changes betwen the 32 and 64 bit CPUs except the size of pointers. They all do 80-bit floating point math and 32 bit integers.

The way to buy a computer is always to wait until the last possable minute and then buy whatever is available at your price point at that time. There is _always_ something better comming out in a few months so wait as long as you can but not a day longer

[EGT]

64 bit or not, Merom sounds fantastic. I can't wait to see these in the portables. :eek:

A mobile chip this fast? = very, very happy Mac user. :D

One wonders how it'll fair with the battery though.

Just to reiterate, Merom = :D :D :D

[p0intblank]

Merom is going to be sweet and everything, but I want more details on Conroe. I can't wait to see how it handles Apple's Pro apps compared to running on the G5 processor.

[asencif]

You can talk about all you need is a 32-Bit and that's understandable, however in the future apps will start to be written/optimized for 64-Bit. It is already the present as the G5 has been out for some years now. Some pro's do use their portables to do high-end stuff and if not will start to do so. It just gives another added dimension to computing. Not everyone will need this power of course, but many Pros will.

The Core Duo is a major stop gap chip and in the technology world things change quickly, however the CD's life is going to be amazingly short. If it was a 64-Bit chip then Intel would just be building on it more and rolling out more cores for 2-3 years. The CD most likely will not see any of that once Merom comes out as that's the chip that originally was wanted by Apple to be first in their lines. Intel is classic for rolling out stop gap chips. Pentium D's..etc..

So yeah some people will be bothered by this and some will say something new always comes out, however with Merom I think some will feel that they got the technology that is truly going to receive the development and attention. Or the one that was meant to be. So yeah they will add 8-Cores to Merom and better than the 2-Core Merom, but at least they still have a Merom.

Conroe is one that I'm really curious about and wanting to see how it will best the G5.

[excalibur313]

So besides 64-bit based software and more possible RAM, does 64-bit capabilities make the chip any faster, or does that depend just on clock speed/cache speed/FSB speed?

Yes, yes a thousand times yes! I had an AMD Athlon 64 processor and loading internet exploror in 64 bit vs 32 bit was probably 3-4 times faster. Milage might vary but if the program is designed to take advantage of it then it will be. So before you post saying its only good for more than 8 gigs of ram really research it. It doesn't really make the chip faster it just means that it can do certain calculations in one step that might have taken a few before.

[Heb1228]

I think the real news here is the possibility for a higher memory ceiling in the laptops. Upping the capacity from 2GB to either 4 or 8 would probably bring a larger performance increase than any other aspect of the processor, especially for power users.

[MacsomJRR]

mmm tempting to wait for that instead of plumping for a macbook...

Why not just wait until after that. Then they'll be even faster! Actually why not just wait until after THAT, wow!

Just buy a MBP and be done with it. GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ:D

[Play Ultimate]

I dont know about you lot, but I am starting to see a reason for switching to intel.

I was skeptical at first but it does seem that they are increasing specifications at an alarming rate, when compared to PowerPC which as far as I know has not progressed much at all?

I do hope that after this transition is complete Apple is not constantly updating things, its nice to have the latest technology at least for a few months! :rolleyes:

I think if Apple had their way, they would have been upgrading their computers all along; probably 2x/year. However, they never had the chips to do so. Now they do. :D

[AidenShaw]

- Any computer is a "stopgap" if something better is in the pipeline.
- Something better always is, and always will be, in the pipeline.
- Therefore, EVERY computer is a "stopgap."
Yes, but "stopgap" usually means a somewhat desperate attempt to paper over a problem with a partial solution that you'd rather not use.

Just like all of the current MacIntels.

I cite only one justification for the claim - "64-bit".

Apple (and Apple users) will be paying the costs for the decision not to wait several more months for 64-bit Intel solutions.

Cost: Resale value - after selling 32-bit MacIntels for 6-8 months, Apple upgrades the line to 64-bit. Wanna buy a used 32-bit MacBook? Didn't think so. Boat anchor.

Cost: Developer pain - after forcing the vendors to make fat binaries for 32-bit x86, in a few months Apple will introduce "even fatter binaries" with code for x86, x64 and PPC. (Hidden cost - how many developers will skip x86 and wait to do "even fatter binaries" with x64 and PPC only? How many will say "to hell with it!" after putting up with the OS9 -> OSX -> x86 -> x64 code porting exercises?)

The 32-bit MacIntels are "Yikes!" machines - stopgaps that will soon be the black sheep. Don't buy one thinking that you'll be able to eBay it when 64-bit arrives....

[AidenShaw]

Yeah, having >4GB of ram in a laptop would be cool and all, but it's not something most people will do anytime soon (nor is there room in most laptops for that many slots).
I think the real news here is the possibility for a higher memory ceiling in the laptops. Upping the capacity from 2GB to either 4 or 8 would probably bring a larger performance increase than any other aspect of the processor, especially for power users.
2 GiB SO-DIMMs are sampling now, and Lenovo (Thinkpad) and HP are claiming that their Yonah laptops will support 4 GiB with 2 GiB SO-DIMMs.

The Napa chipset supports a max of 4 GiB, so don't hold your breath waiting for 8 GiB in a notebook ;) !

Has Apple promised 4 GiB in the MBP or Imac?

[AidenShaw]

Why does anyone want a 64-bit notebook? With Intel X86 architecture the only thing "64-bit" adds is the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM. Unless you actually install and use 8GB or 16GB in the notebook the 64-bit stuff is usless.
Completely wrong - the bulk of the performance testing on the x86/x64 platform is showing a typical 20% performance improvement on 64-bit code. You see this with 1 or 2 GiB of RAM - you don't need 8 GiB to see a 64-bit benefit.

The reason is that x64 has more than twice as many usable general purpose registers as x86 - so compilers can reduce many of the slow accesses to cache and the far slower accesses to RAM.

If you'd said "With PPC architecture the only thing "64-bit" adds is the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM" you'd be much more correct - but x64 is faster than x86 almost all of the time.

Not much changes betwen the 32 and 64 bit CPUs except the size of pointers. They all do 80-bit floating point math and 32 bit integers.
Actually, the 32-bit Intel chips do 64-bit and 128-bit integers, but it would be picky to point that out.

So besides 64-bit based software and more possible RAM, does 64-bit capabilities make the chip any faster, or does that depend just on clock speed/cache speed/FSB speed?

See above.

[asencif]

Yes, but "stopgap" usually means a somewhat desperate attempt to paper over a problem with a partial solution that you'd rather not use.

Just like all of the current MacIntels.

I cite only one justification for the claim - "64-bit".

Apple (and Apple users) will be paying the costs for the decision not to wait several more months for 64-bit Intel solutions.

Cost: Resale value - after selling 32-bit MacIntels for 6-8 months, Apple upgrades the line to 64-bit. Wanna buy a used 32-bit MacBook? Didn't think so. Boat anchor.

Cost: Developer pain - after forcing the vendors to make fat binaries for 32-bit x86, in a few months Apple will introduce "even fatter binaries" with code for x86, x64 and PPC. (Hidden cost - how many developers will skip x86 and wait to do "even fatter binaries" with x64 and PPC only? How many will say "to hell with it!"?)

The 32-bit MacIntels are "Yikes!" machines - stopgaps that will soon be the black sheep.

Yeah that's the problem with going with a 32-Bit stop gap chip. No one is saying these MacIntels are not fast and not better than the G4 laptop and single G5 iMacs. I would just say that a CD should be better than a single G5, however a core solo does not outdue a G5. I would've preferred Apple waited for Merom IMHO. It is what they really wanted and what will be on the laptop lines and possibly iMac line for at least 2-3 years. The upgrades will most likely be speed bumps and additions of more cores.

So yeah 32-Bit was going back since the future is 64-Bit, that was one of the biggest selling points of the G5. I guess they had to take a step back before taking one forward. All was not lost since the laptops did get faster, yet people are taking so long to receive them that Merom is getting closer and closer.

[excalibur313]

What exactly is discussed at this developer forum? Does it give official dates or do they just debut the products and allow people to try them out?

[~Shard~]

Interesting, I thought Merom was delayed to 2007. Well, this will be good news if it's true.

So, Powermac and Xserve are getting Conroe/Woodcrest, the portables are getting Merom (along with the Mac mini no doubt), but ti will be interesting to see what the next generation of iMacs get - Conroe or Merom? It will be interesting to see, I could make arguments for either... :cool:

[ncook06]

I love how I don't even have a Mac yet, and I'm off to college in late August, and I'm reading all of this like I should wait. Personally, instead of jumping all over this "wait till September" attitude, I'm getting a 1.83 GHz MBP with the 7200 RPM HD and an extra GB of RAM. Only $2100 :rolleyes: . I was planning on going consumer-level notebook for my first and upgrading when Merom is released, but when I heard that....
A completely new platform for Merom will be arriving in the second quarter of 2007: There is little we know about this platform, which is code-named Santa Rosa, so far. However, sources indicated that the platform originally was planned to carry DDR3 memory, FSB1066 as well as a major graphics upgrade - all of which have been dropped. Also, the platform is unlikely to be capable of running HD video through hardware decoding.
... a while ago, I decided that I should jump into a professional line notebook that I will be happy with for a long time until Merom is optimized.

People are already very happy with their MBPs. It appears that the only people dissatisfied with the current Intel lineup are those waiting for rev B or Merom.

[~Shard~]

People are already very happy with their MBPs. It appears that the only people dissatisfied with the current Intel lineup are those waiting for rev B or Merom.

Yeah, and if you're always waiting for the next best thing, guess what - you'll always be waiting. ;) Buy the machine that meets your needs, when you need it, and you'll never be dissatisfied. :cool:

[prostuff1]

This sounds like great news.

Now i have to figure out how much my current iBook will be worth so i can sell it to my sister and get myself a MacBook with merom inside.;)

[~Shard~]

This sounds like great news.

Now i have to figure out how much my current iBook will be worth so i can sell it to my sister and get myself a MacBook with merom inside.;)

I wouldn't hold your breath - just because Merom might be available earlier now than expected, that doesn't mean you'll see it in a MacBook anytime soon. Look for the initial batch of Intel iBooks (MacBooks) to sport similar configurations to that of the new Mac mini (1.5 Solo, 1.66 Duo), and look for the MacBook Pros to receive the Merom well before the MacBooks ever will.

[dontmatter]

makes you wonder if the current MBP are just a stop-gap solution to the end of the G4 and wait for the Merom chips late in the year.

Aren't all computers just stop gap solutions? Further down the pipeline is always the holy grail of fast that you wait for, and then once it's come, it's just a stopgap to the next thing

[Felldownthewell]

I love how I don't even have a Mac yet, and I'm off to college in late August, and I'm reading all of this like I should wait. Personally, instead of jumping all over this "wait till September" attitude, I'm getting a 1.83 GHz MBP with the 7200 RPM HD and an extra GB of RAM. Only $2100 :rolleyes: . I was planning on going consumer-level notebook for my first and upgrading when Merom is released, but when I heard that....

... a while ago, I decided that I should jump into a professional line notebook that I will be happy with for a long time until Merom is optimized.

People are already very happy with their MBPs. It appears that the only people dissatisfied with the current Intel lineup are those waiting for rev B or Merom.

I have decided on the same course of action; considering what I am upgrading from (2.2ghz P4, 512 RAM, Gforce5200FX) and what I am going to be doing (word processing, FCP, and some gaming), I think the MBP is enough power for me. When mobile chips have DDR3 and 1066mhzFSB, I will upgrade. Until then, a 2ghz/2GB/7200 will do me fine.

[Undecided]

There will definitely be a rev of the iMac and mini this year. Has anyone else noticed that the new Mac mini and the iMac are labeled "early 2006" (as in edition) all over apple.com?

Start here: http://www.apple.com/support/macmini/

[ThinkingMac]

I am sorry that I don’t understand a lot of the technical stuff you guy’s write about here but I do like to read what you all have to say.

I am a photojournalist mainly covering war zones and I rely on my laptop for 100% of my work, as I have to file from the field.

My Powerbook is a G4 1.5 with 2 gigs Ram, 128 VR and a 5,400-rpm disk.

The main applications that I use are Photoshop, C1 Pro (Raw converter) FotoStation (for cataloguing and captioning), and Cute FTP pro
And Office 2004. I also purchased Aperture but frankly it sucks at the moment but I do have high hopes that Apple will get it right.

My main problem is that pro Digital cameras are producing bigger and bigger files. My Canon 1D MKII produces a file that when opened in PS is almost 100 Megs.

My Ideal laptop would be exactly what I have now (Firewire 800, built in modem, and Buscard slot as I use a 32bit Lexar reader) plus MUCH more power and MORE RAM and a brighter screen as I can hardly see this one when working outside in sunshine. As for battery life, I never get more than 2 hours when working images, I have 2 spare apple batteries and most of the time a portable generator!!

I would love a new MBP 2.16 but would miss things that are really important to me, I know I can carry a plug in CF card reader and separate modem but it’s just more clutter to damage or loose.

Would I be correct in thinking that 64 bit makes for a more stable application? Faster image manipulation? And as most of the programs I use everyday are not yet UB that waiting for the Meron laptop would be the best thing for me to do?

Sorry this is long winded but thought some background would help with your advice.

[4God]

Will we see another PM G5 before this?


I have the same question. Anybody want to speculate?:confused:

Will there be updates to the PowerMac before they go Intel?

[cheapnis]

I have the same question. Anybody want to speculate?:confused:

Will there be updates to the PowerMac before they go Intel?
Is this not the same question as "can the present G5 dualcores be clocked higher?"

Or are there others in the pipeline?

[jabooth]

Yes, yes a thousand times yes! I had an AMD Athlon 64 processor and loading internet exploror in 64 bit vs 32 bit was probably 3-4 times faster. Milage might vary but if the program is designed to take advantage of it then it will be. So before you post saying its only good for more than 8 gigs of ram really research it. It doesn't really make the chip faster it just means that it can do certain calculations in one step that might have taken a few before.

You sure mate? I experimented in 64bit linux for a while and 64bit didn't mean programs open faster (they actually might take slightly longer due to the fact they take up slightly more memory than 32 bit versions) but yes, once a program is running you do see a speed benefit.

Sorry I can't cite you a source, can anyone confirm this?

Or am I just barking up the wrong tree :p

[Hunabku]

You can talk about all you need is a 32-Bit and that's understandable, however in the future apps will start to be written/optimized for 64-Bit. It is already the present as the G5 has been out for some years now. Some pro's do use their portables to do high-end stuff and if not will start to do so. It just gives another added dimension to computing. Not everyone will need this power of course, but many Pros will.

The Core Duo is a major stop gap chip and in the technology world things change quickly, however the CD's life is going to be amazingly short. If it was a 64-Bit chip then Intel would just be building on it more and rolling out more cores for 2-3 years. The CD most likely will not see any of that once Merom comes out as that's the chip that originally was wanted by Apple to be first in their lines. Intel is classic for rolling out stop gap chips. Pentium D's..etc..

So yeah some people will be bothered by this and some will say something new always comes out, however with Merom I think some will feel that they got the technology that is truly going to receive the development and attention. Or the one that was meant to be. So yeah they will add 8-Cores to Merom and better than the 2-Core Merom, but at least they still have a Merom.

Conroe is one that I'm really curious about and wanting to see how it will best the G5.

Here, here. As programs are written for 64 bit we can expect relatively decent speed increases in certain areas. If there are enough of these increases then the value of your 32 bit computer will drop accordingly.

With more & more 64 bit processors coming online, the demand for software to support them is increasing. In coming versions, we will see Photoshop optimized for 64 bit - even photoshop cs2 needs Windows XP 64 to access more than 2gb RAM.

It would be good to know when Adobe will pull this off. I don't expect it will be in their next major release of photoshop UB-Mac & PC. But I could be wrong - insights any one?

[iPie]

There will definitely be a rev of the iMac and mini this year. Has anyone else noticed that the new Mac mini and the iMac are labeled "early 2006" (as in edition) all over apple.com?

Start here: http://www.apple.com/support/macmini/

That's a good point! Anybody care to speculate as to why Apple needs to qualify their NEW mac mini with (early 2006)?

Do the conroe and merom chips give the current intel macs an 'nearing end of lifecycle' status? or is this just a standard and regular upgrade of the mac?

For many people there is no 'last moment' when buying a new mac. It is more a question of increasing hassle with what they already have. If these chips are such a significant change, maybe it is worth delayed gratification.

[DVK916]

Both the next Intel iMac and Powermacs should get conroe, with merom being reserved for the intel ibook, and mac book pro. So I wonder how apple will make the new mac book pro significantly better than the imac given that it is clear both will use conroe.

[sunfast]

13.3" Widescreen MBP w/ a Merom proc and OS X 10.5 Leopard pre-installed

My dream machine!!

[combatcolin]

New PowerMacs with 10.5 please.

And Apple can have my £1600 order.

:)

[jocknerd]

I can see Steve offering the MacBook Ultimate or something like that. Sell it for $3299. That would really suck.

[ScubaDuc]

Both the next Intel iMac and Powermacs should get conroe, with merom being reserved for the intel ibook, and mac book pro. So I wonder how apple will make the new mac book pro significantly better than the imac given that it is clear both will use conroe.


I think it's likely that also i-Macs wil get the 64 bit Merom chip because it seems to be pin-to-pin compatible with Yonah, as was evidenced in the "upgrading Mac Mini" thread. This way Apple will just drop in the new chips in the MacBook pros and iMacs and bingo, they have "new" products with no significant re-designing

The MacMinis and new iBooks (macbooks) will remain Yonah for a while so that there is a clear segmentation between the pro and the consumer lines.

I would like to see benchmarks of the new Mini though: where are they? :confused:

[nataku]

wow this is really cool. I want to see Merom MacBooks. But I can not wait for September for a next-gen Mac laptop! I want my MacBook now!!! :D

[MacQuest]

There will definitely be a rev of the iMac and mini this year. Has anyone else noticed that the new Mac mini and the iMac are labeled "early 2006" (as in edition) all over apple.com?

Start here: http://www.apple.com/support/macmini/

That's a good point! Anybody care to speculate as to why Apple needs to qualify their NEW mac mini with (early 2006)?

Do the conroe and merom chips give the current intel macs an 'nearing end of lifecycle' status? or is this just a standard and regular upgrade of the mac?

Assuming that the 64 bit Merom Mac Mini replaces the current 32 bit Yonah Mac Mini [7-10 months] and therefore drastically reduces the value of the 32 bit Yonah Mac Mini, wouldn't that mean that buying a current [socketed] Mac Mini Core Solo that we now know is upgradeable to [at least for now] the 2.16 Core Duo is a REALLY good investment?

Think about how much and how quickly those [currently] $400 Yonah Core Duo chips will drop in price once the Merom's are introduced!

BETTER YET, does anyone know if the Merom chips will be pin-compatabile with the Yonah chips? Now that would be a serious upgrade. Going from a 32 bit Yonah 1.5Ghz Core Solo Mac Mini to a 64 bit Merom 2.33Ghz Core Duo Mac Mini.

H0LEE ****!!!

As far as the heat issue argument, if the Core Duo 2.16 Mac Mini seems to be holding up okay, then the lower wattage Merom should hold up as well, correct?

Please advise, as I will buy a Mac Mini Core Solo immediately if this is the case.

Thanks!

[MacQuest]

BETTER YET, does anyone know if the Merom chips will be pin-compatabile with the Yonah chips? Now that would be a serious upgrade. Going from a 32 bit Yonah 1.5Ghz Core Solo Mac Mini to a 64 bit Merom 2.33Ghz Core Duo Mac Mini.

I think it's likely that also i-Macs wil get the 64 bit Merom chip because it seems to be pin-to-pin compatible with Yonah, as was evidenced in the "upgrading Mac Mini" thread.

OH, SWEET CHEEZITS LET THIS BE TRUE!!!

Can anyone else verify pin-compatability between Merom and Yonah, and maybe give me the slightest glimmer of hope that a 32-bit Yonah 1.5Ghz Core Solo Mac Mini could possibly be upgraded to a 64-bit Merom 2.33Ghz Core Duo Mac Mini?

Not that an upgrade to a 2.16Ghz 32-bit Yonah Core Duo [from a 1.5Ghz Core Solo] at a [hopefully drastically] reduced price would be anything to sneeze at. Just the possibility of upgrading to a 64-bit 2.33Ghz Merom makes the investment all that much sweeter though.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Kelmon]

...and the wait continues...

I had a play with a MacBook Pro in the Sheffield Apple Store while my wife was left to rampage through the clothing shops and I was pretty impressed. However, I have been planning for some time to wait for Merom (oddly the guys in the store hadn't heard of it) as I had always seen Yonah, once Merom was announced, as being an interim solution and I'm looking for something that will last me for some time. Interestingly the linked article suggested that the Santa Rosa chipset for Merom would be both delayed and not deliver what it was initially expected to do. I had been planning to wait for that but there's now the possibility that I might as well buy in September, which is pretty much when there will be sufficient cash in the bank for a balls-out 17" version.

I'm going to continue following news of the Santa Rosa chipset but I can't really wait much longer as my 1GHz Ti is getting long in the tooth. If it won't deliver much more than Napa64 and won't arrive until mid 2007 then I'll buy a Merom-based system once they are released by Apple. Given the competitive market that Apple is now in with their systems running the same hardware as the likes of Dell and HP I'm expecting new MacBook Pros to arrive with Merom soon after the official launch so as not to be left behind the "competition".

[ScottB]

I'm quite sure it has been said before on this thread but I think these will clearly be in the PowerMac or whatever they rename it as. Because aren't the intel chips Apple are using now laptop ones?

[AidenShaw]

BETTER YET, does anyone know if the Merom chips will be pin-compatabile with the Yonah chips? Now that would be a serious upgrade. Going from a 32 bit Yonah 1.5Ghz Core Solo Mac Mini to a 64 bit Merom 2.33Ghz Core Duo Mac Mini.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html

Intel Merom to Be Pin-to-Pin Compatible with Yonah – Intel Exec
Intel Discloses Some Specs of Next-Gen Mobile Product

Category: CPU

by Anton Shilov

[ 10/19/2005 | 06:35 PM ]


"Intel Corp. disclosed certain specifications of its code-named Merom processors, which is slated to come in the second half of 2006 and utilize fully new architecture. An important point is that Merom will be compatible with mobile platforms designed for Intel Pentium M processor based on the Yonah core.
...

Additionally, a being dual-core processor made on a single piece of silicon, Merom will sport L1-to-L1 cache transfer as well as, possibly, unified L2 cache (up to 4MB) for better performance in applications that heavily rely on threading."

[AidenShaw]

Intel is classic for rolling out stop gap chips. Pentium D's..etc.

Aren't all computers just stop gap solutions? Further down the pipeline is always the holy grail of fast that you wait for, and then once it's come, it's just a stopgap to the next thing
But the Pentium D runs existing software, and is compatible with motherboards that support Pentium 4 and Celeron D chips. While it is fair to call the Pentium D a "stopgap", it is almost completely painless for computer makers, software makers, and users. It is a cheap and effective way to get the benefits of dual-core to users earlier than the unified multi-core design cycle would allow.

Apple's "stopgap 32-bit machines", however, require that the OS and all applications be ported to the new hardware if you want native performance.

When Merom comes around, the OS and all applications will need to be ported again to 64-bit if you want the best performance. (Wait for WWDC to hear the presentations about how OSx64 will be a true 64-bit OS stem-to-stern (like XP 64-bit), and unlike the lame 64-bit stuff tacked onto Tiger.)

The "9 months of Yonah" will be a speed bump that will cost Apple, vendors and users for years down the road. "Even fatter" binaries with x86, x64 and PPC code. Testing, QA and support for three versions of each product. Early "retirement" for 32-bit Intel support, as companies realize that they won't make enough money from 32-bit MacIntels to cover the costs of the extra fat. Rapidly dropping resale value for Yonah as soon as Merom appears, and especially when OSx64 shows up.

[gnasher729]

So besides 64-bit based software and more possible RAM, does 64-bit capabilities make the chip any faster, or does that depend just on clock speed/cache speed/FSB speed?

Generally, 64 bit doesn't make the chip faster, except for some very specialised applications (it helps with encryption, for example).

The Intel/AMD chips are a bit unusual: In 64 bit mode, not only do they have 64-bit registers, they also have twice as many integer and floating point registers as in 32 bit mode, and that usually can make code run 10% to 20% faster.

So x86 chips run faster in 64 bit mode, but not because of the 64 bit.

[ieani]

Looks like my ideal laptop will not be out until right before I am due at college. So I guess I will get the Imac now and then sell it later on for this one. With hopefully not too much money lost due to Apples poor matching of my wants/needs.

[AidenShaw]

The Intel/AMD chips are a bit unusual: In 64 bit mode, not only do they have 64-bit registers, they also have twice as many integer and floating point registers as in 32 bit mode, and that usually can make code run 10% to 20% faster.
A couple of additional points

x86/x64 usually dedicates 3 of the 8 integer registers for program control and linkages. This means that in x64 mode you have 13 usuable registers, vs 5 usable in x86 mode - more than 2½ times as many.
x64 also has twice as many 128-bit SSE registers - 16 instead of 8
x86/x64 do not have any floating point registers - the FP87 uses an FP stack
It is recommended to use SSE instructions for scalar floating point (use vector arithmetic, but with a vector length of 1). When this is done, x64 has twice as many SSE registers for floating point use.

There are a couple of other minor architectural differences that can improve performance in some circumstances.

[milo]

Going back to 32bit seemed like a step backwards..

I think the key word here is SEEMED. On the iMacs nothing was lost by going to 32 bit. The only real advantage of 64 bit is more than 4 gigs of ram, and they didn't have the slots for that anyway. On the iMac, nothing was lost, and a ton was gained by going to a dual core CPU.

Not to mention that the current version of OSX doesn't really allow 64 bit applications yet, it will take an OS rewrite.


Cost: Resale value - after selling 32-bit MacIntels for 6-8 months, Apple upgrades the line to 64-bit. Wanna buy a used 32-bit MacBook? Didn't think so. Boat anchor.

Cost: Developer pain - after forcing the vendors to make fat binaries for 32-bit x86, in a few months Apple will introduce "even fatter binaries" with code for x86, x64 and PPC. (Hidden cost - how many developers will skip x86 and wait to do "even fatter binaries" with x64 and PPC only? How many will say "to hell with it!" after putting up with the OS9 -> OSX -> x86 -> x64 code porting exercises?)

Why would anyone value a 32 bit machine any less? What can't they do that a 64 bit machine can?

And 64 bit apps provide an advantage only on a very few high end things. Only a handful of developers will release 64 bit apps, most will probably wait years and will only support 64 when it's done automatically by the compiler. How much extra work is it to create an app that runs in 32 and 64 anyway? Is it much different than current apps that have G5 optimization but still run on G4 or G3?

The situation is similar to G4 vs G5. Were the G4's suddenly crippled because they couldn't run apps? Nope. And the G4's didn't drop off a cliff in value, they dropped a bit just because they were a little bit slower, not because of 32 vs 64.

I just don't buy it.

[dosers]

I am with you.
Look, I love to have a 64-bit Merom MacBook and so forth, and the additional cache and few hertz will help, but why are people SO excited about this ?

Keep this in mind (as one of my co-workers pointed out):
There is NO mention in Apple's developer documentation about the amd64 ABI.

All of Apple's documentation that discusses 64-bit applications and ABIs is PowerPC-centric.

Don't get me wrong; they obviously are working on 64-bit capable Intel boxes, but it would be nice if they let their developers know about it, and to date they haven't:

<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_bi
nary/universal_binary_abi_a/chapter_9_section_1.html>
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/LowL
evelABI/index.html>

Conversely, Apple is currently looking for a Senior System Bringup Engineer with EM64T experience:

> The Kernel Engineering team within Apple's CoreOS organization is looking > for an exceptional engineer to work on state-of-the art kernel technology > for Mac OS X.

[ ... ]

> This position involves low-level platform support, particularly for > Intel-based products. You will be involved in system bringup, design > and implementation of low-level kernel enhancements, and adopting > new technologies. Specific experience with the IA32 supervisor mode > programming model, including the MMU, IPC, EM64, and other technologies > will be particularly helpful.

My point is that I doubt you will see any advantages from 64-bit, unless you are working with specific apps or need more than 4GB of flat-address memory. Yeah, it looks all great on paper, but I don't see the 'new 64-bit Macbook' to be THAT revolutionary compared to the current Yonah models...



I think the key word here is SEEMED. On the iMacs nothing was lost by going to 32 bit. The only real advantage of 64 bit is more than 4 gigs of ram, and they didn't have the slots for that anyway. On the iMac, nothing was lost, and a ton was gained by going to a dual core CPU.

Not to mention that the current version of OSX doesn't really allow 64 bit applications yet, it will take an OS rewrite.




Why would anyone value a 32 bit machine any less? What can't they do that a 64 bit machine can?

And 64 bit apps provide an advantage only on a very few high end things. Only a handful of developers will release 64 bit apps, most will probably wait years and will only support 64 when it's done automatically by the compiler. How much extra work is it to create an app that runs in 32 and 64 anyway? Is it much different than current apps that have G5 optimization but still run on G4 or G3?

The situation is similar to G4 vs G5. Were the G4's suddenly crippled because they couldn't run apps? Nope. And the G4's didn't drop off a cliff in value, they dropped a bit just because they were a little bit slower, not because of 32 vs 64.

I just don't buy it.

[iris_failsafe]

Maybe Apple would wait and release the 17' MBP with Merom.
Wait about a year a swth the Imac and the 15' MBP to it


About Conroes is that the repalecement of the P4 or of the Xeon?
I thing the replacement for the g5 must be a workstation class processor...

[dosers]

According Intel's roadmap, it's really Conroe, which is the star (Spring IDF 2006).

According to Intel, Conroe will give 40% more performance while using 40% less power.

Merom, will be "at a constant battery life compared to the Core Duo T2600", while providing 20% more performance.
That means, according to Intel, battery life will not be any 'better' by itself than that of the current Yonah, while we'll see a moderate performance increase.

[DVK916]

According Intel's roadmap, it's really Conroe, which is the star (Spring IDF 2006).

According to Intel, Conroe will give 40% more performance while using 40% less power.

Merom, will be "at a constant battery life compared to the Core Duo T2600", while providing 20% more performance.
That means, according to Intel, battery life will not be any 'better' by itself than that of the current Yonah, while we'll see a moderate performance increase.

Conroe will use 40% less power than the current P4, it will still consume more power than Yonah, and way more than Merom.

[DVK916]

I think it's likely that also i-Macs wil get the 64 bit Merom chip because it seems to be pin-to-pin compatible with Yonah, as was evidenced in the "upgrading Mac Mini" thread. This way Apple will just drop in the new chips in the MacBook pros and iMacs and bingo, they have "new" products with no significant re-designing

The MacMinis and new iBooks (macbooks) will remain Yonah for a while so that there is a clear segmentation between the pro and the consumer lines.

I would like to see benchmarks of the new Mini though: where are they? :confused:

The problem with this though is Merom will be more expensive than the equivalently clocked Conroe chip. Meaning if the new PowerMac get the Conroe it will allow them to be cheaper to produce.

[MacQuest]

BETTER YET, does anyone know if the Merom chips will be pin-compatabile with the Yonah chips? Now that would be a serious upgrade. Going from a 32 bit Yonah 1.5Ghz Core Solo Mac Mini to a 64 bit Merom 2.33Ghz Core Duo Mac Mini.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html

Intel Merom to Be Pin-to-Pin Compatible with Yonah – Intel Exec
Intel Discloses Some Specs of Next-Gen Mobile Product

Category: CPU

by Anton Shilov

[ 10/19/2005 | 06:35 PM ]


"Intel Corp. disclosed certain specifications of its code-named Merom processors, which is slated to come in the second half of 2006 and utilize fully new architecture. An important point is that Merom will be compatible with mobile platforms designed for Intel Pentium M processor based on the Yonah core.
...

Additionally, a being dual-core processor made on a single piece of silicon, Merom will sport L1-to-L1 cache transfer as well as, possibly, unified L2 cache (up to 4MB) for better performance in applications that heavily rely on threading."

Just to clarify then, would this be:

a- very likely
b- very unlikely
c- too early to decide

Obviously it looks like it may be very likely, but just asking in case there might be some "unknowns" to factor in.

[Anonymous Freak]

According Intel's roadmap, it's really Conroe, which is the star (Spring IDF 2006).

According to Intel, Conroe will give 40% more performance while using 40% less power.

Merom, will be "at a constant battery life compared to the Core Duo T2600", while providing 20% more performance.
That means, according to Intel, battery life will not be any 'better' by itself than that of the current Yonah, while we'll see a moderate performance increase.

The basic comparison is that the existing Pentium 4/Pentium D is a power hog. Core Duo isn't. That's because Core Duo is based on a long-established core that was designed from the ground up for low power consumption. Pentium 4 wasn't. Unfortunately, while the P4 core can scale well in terms of clock speed, it has run into a THERMAL barrier. People using extreme cooling have gotten Pentium D's up to over 4 GHz no problem; but it requires more extreme cooling than the liquid cooling used in the G5.

So what is Conroe/Merom? It's a redesigned core based loosly on the same core as Core Duo! Conroe will basically be a Core Duo with looser power/thermal requirements to it can scale to higher clockspeeds on the desktop where every last Watt isn't as important; while Merom is basically just a simple upgrade of Core Duo.

As for Merom being pin-compatible with Core Duo? While the physical socket may be the same, and it may even have the same power requirements, it will almost certainly require a new chipset. Intel has been notorious for this in the past. (The Pentium 4 used Socket 478 for a long time, and had three major upgrades to the core in that time. Each core upgrade required a new chipset, even though the physical socket was technically 'pin compatible'.)

So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting to hear that the just-released mini can be upgraded to a Merom. If it does, take it as a happy surprise.

[milo]

As for Merom being pin-compatible with Core Duo? While the physical socket may be the same, and it may even have the same power requirements, it will almost certainly require a new chipset. Intel has been notorious for this in the past. (The Pentium 4 used Socket 478 for a long time, and had three major upgrades to the core in that time. Each core upgrade required a new chipset, even though the physical socket was technically 'pin compatible'.)

Intel is saying Merom will run on the same chipset.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html

[Anonymous Freak]

Intel is saying Merom will run on the same chipset.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html

Double check your linked article. It says that it is 'pin-compatible', which I explain in my previous post. The closest to saying that it runs on the same chipset is some pure speculation from X-bit:

... which may mean that systems originally designed for Yonah may be upgraded to support the future chips by installing a new BIOS. Provided that code-named Napa platform intended for Yonah also supports Merom, the latter should operate using 667MHz Quad Pumped Bus.

To clarify, 'Napa' is the 845M chipset family developed for the Yonah (a.k.a. Core Duo) processor. Napa has already been released, as it's in the MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac mini right now. They are saying that IF the current chipset was built to support Merom, then it means that Merom would likely use the same bus speed. It is not a definite yes from Intel, it is pure speculation in an attempt to figure out how fast the bus speed of Merom will be. It's all speculation at this point. I honestly think that the bus speed for Merom will go up to at least 800 MHz; but that's not based on any inside information. (I'll try to get some inside information later this week.)

And 'pin-compatible' has been done by Intel in the past with chipsets, too. It may require a new chipset to support Merom, but the chipset may very well be pin-compatible with the old chipset, meaning that a manufacturer just has to swap out both chips with minimal effort. Easy for a manufacturer, but still impossible for an end-user.

P.S. The X-bit article is from last October, it's outdated now. I'm trying to find current info, but we'll have to wait for more complete reports from IDF...

[paz117]

whatever those specs are hot

[airkarol]

Can't wait all of the panic-induced "should I sell my current macbook/powerbook/whatever for the new Macs?" threads.

:D

im way ahead of everyone on that haha, except for the thread part, i sold it around a month ago, and got $1525, which seems pretty good.

[wrxsti86]

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/top_10_v1.pdf

What can I say?

[DVK916]

Intel is saying Merom will run on the same chipset.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20051019183430.html

It doens't say that, it says it uses the same pin not that the chipset will be compatible. I doubt Napa will work with Merom, there is a reason intel is designing Napa64 Chipset. because the current Napa chip set doesn't support 64 bits.

[sjl]

So besides 64-bit based software and more possible RAM, does 64-bit capabilities make the chip any faster, or does that depend just on clock speed/cache speed/FSB speed?
It's already been covered by others, but to give you a bit more detail: there are currently three major platforms available in both 32 bit and 64 bit forms: SPARC, PowerPC, and x86. Sparc has 32 general purpose registers. PowerPC also has 32 general purpose registers. For both those CPUs, the number of available registers doesn't change depending on whether you're in 32 bit or 64 bit mode.

x86 has just 6 general purpose registers in 32 bit mode: EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX, ESI, and EDI. There's also a couple of stack registers, which I'll ignore, as they're tied up with other duties, and can't really be used for general purposes. ESI and EDI are often used for memory indexing, which means you can't really treat them as general purpose, unless you're very careful about the assembly opcodes you emit.

When you look at x86-64, though, AMD added another eight general purpose registers. These are unavailable in 32 bit mode -- only code compiled for 64 bit mode can use them.

In terms of speed, there is a definite heirarchy in the computing world. Slowest to access (locally; I'm ignoring networks) is the hard drive. Next is the main memory. Then the various levels of cache, and finally, the registers, which are physically part of the main CPU. So if you have a function that manipulates a lot of data, it's going to benefit from having access to a lot of registers.

With PowerPC and Sparc, because the number of registers doesn't change from 32 bit to 64 bit mode, there's actually a slowdown when going to 64 bit mode: addresses are twice the size, so need more space in the cache, and so on. As a result, you'll only see apps compiled to 64 bit mode on these platforms when they need to be. On x86, though, the additional registers are a major win, which offsets -- in a major way -- the performance hit from the greater amount of data being thrown around.

So: on PowerPC, 64 bit only really buys you more memory, at the cost of a little speed; the loss of speed is insignificant for those apps that need the memory (as they'd otherwise be swapping data in and out of memory to keep it within the limits), but is noticeable otherwise. On x86, 64 bit buys you both more memory, and more registers, which makes it a win for every app.

Me? I have a PowerBook G4 (1.25), and a first-release Mac Mini. I'll be upgrading my nearly three-year-old PowerBook when Apple releases a 64 bit x86 laptop for just the reasons above; I can limp along with the G4 until then. OS X may not be compiled in 64 bit mode yet, and hence won't really take advantage, but long term, it's going to be a better buy. The fact that it's going to take me all that time to save up the necessary dollars is just a side point. :D I'd advise anybody that can hang fire until the 64 bit laptops come out to do so, as well (whilst acknowledging that some people can't do that; for them, the current MacBook Pro is a decent buy.)

[MarkCollette]

And to think one day I'll be stairing at the new XServes with (Woodcrest?). *shudder of joy*

Please don't throw your XServe down the stairs. ;)


I was skeptical at first but it does seem that they are increasing specifications at an alarming rate, when compared to PowerPC which as far as I know has not progressed much at all?


Since the MacBook Pros were marketed at one speed, and then shipped at a faster speed, a difference that eclipses G4 speedbumps, I'd say they already have a better track record for improvement :)


I wouldn't hold your breath - just because Merom might be available earlier now than expected, that doesn't mean you'll see it in a MacBook anytime soon. Look for the initial batch of Intel iBooks (MacBooks) to sport similar configurations to that of the new Mac mini (1.5 Solo, 1.66 Duo), and look for the MacBook Pros to receive the Merom well before the MacBooks ever will.

Maybe. I guess it comes down to cost, but since Merom will have better battery life than Core Duos, it's probably more likely that MacBooks will get them soon after MacBook Pros, but just lag in MHz. Nah, who am I kidding. I can totally see Apple shooting itself in the foot just to protect "Pro" sales.


Early "retirement" for 32-bit Intel support, as companies realize that they won't make enough money from 32-bit MacIntels to cover the costs of the extra fat. Rapidly dropping resale value for Yonah as soon as Merom appears, and especially when OSx64 shows up.

I think that most companies, when trying to reduce the number of versions of software, and faced with the choice of less performance and more potential users, versus more performance and less potential users, will inevitably choose more paying users.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
Early "retirement" for 32-bit Intel support, as companies realize that they won't make enough money from 32-bit MacIntels to cover the costs of the extra fat.
I think that most companies, when trying to reduce the number of versions of software, and faced with the choice of less performance and more potential users, versus more performance and less potential users, will inevitably choose more paying users.
But, "better performance" can mean "more paying users" - especially if your competitors start advertising how much faster they are on the latest 64-bit PowerMacIntels. (Remember the typical 20% performance improvement just from recompiling for 64-bit....)

Your reasoning makes sense, but you also need to consider that there really won't be that many MacIntels sold during the "9 months of Yonah" - compared to the number sold this fall after 64-bit chips are available on every MacIntel from the low end to the high end. And, the MacIntels that are currently being sold are primarily lower-end systems - the 64-bit systems will be higher-end.

It's all speculation at this point, and Apple could change the equation by refusing to actually support 64-bit in any meaningful way (like they've done with Tiger - the 64-bit PPC support is lame).

I'll stand by my prediction/opinion that the Yonah systems will be quickly marginalized by Merom in the current lines, by Conroe in a new mini-tower line, and by Woodcrest in the full PowerMac tower line.

[MarkCollette]

But, "better performance" can mean "more paying users" - especially if your competitors start advertising how much faster they are on the latest 64-bit PowerMacIntels. (Remember the typical 20% performance improvement just from recompiling for 64-bit....)

I totally agree that this will create pressure to add 64 bit support. I just would be surprised at companies that use this as a justification to drop 32 bit support.

But of course, all it takes is for that one peice of software that you totally rely on, to drop 32 bit support, and then bam, you're screwed.


I'll stand by my prediction/opinion that the Yonah systems will be quickly marginalized by Merom in the current lines, by Conroe in a new mini-tower line, and by Woodcrest in the full PowerMac tower line.

Ahh you slipped in a new Apple product rumour/prediction there :) I really really wish that Apple would release something like a double height mini, that would use desktop parts, and maybe even allow for GPU upgrading. THAT would be a real switcher machine.

[Anonymous Freak]

It's all speculation at this point, and Apple could change the equation by refusing to actually support 64-bit in any meaningful way (like they've done with Tiger - the 64-bit PPC support is lame).

What do you mean that the 64-bit PPC support is lame?

You can have an app address more than 4 GB of RAM, you can have an app use 64-bit wide data. How much more '64-bit' do you get? Remember, on PPC, the chip can mix 32-bit an 64-bit seamlessly. There is no reason to run the entire OS in 64-bit, only the bits that deal with 64-bit data structures, or memory management.

On Intel, there will be. You take a severe performance hit for trying to switch between 64-bit mode and 32-bit mode. So on Intel, it WILL make sense to run everything in 64-bit; not just for the 20% speed increase, but to cut down on mode switching.

[Val-kyrie]

No unfortunately, the CPU while a major drain isn’t the only power hungry device. Memory, GPU, Display, media, they all suck power... That said, we should still see substantial increases in battery life.

Actually, Apple (and other pc manufacturers) could boost battery life in laptops by implementing LED technology in their displays. LEDs (compared to current LCDs) are brighter, consume less energy, and have a more dynamic color range. A couple laptops already use LED technology (can't find the link at the moment). This would excite me.

[AidenShaw]

What do you mean that the 64-bit PPC support is lame?

You can have an app address more than 4 GB of RAM, you can have an app use 64-bit wide data. How much more '64-bit' do you get?
Write an app that uses 64-bit addressing and has a GUI or uses any of the Cocoa frameworks. You can't.

Windows 64-bit doesn't force you to run a 64-bit app from a command line in a terminal window - Apple does.

That's lame.

ps: Windows 32-bit can use 64-bit and 128-bit wide data no problem. "64-bit" means that an app has flat addressing for more than 32-bit (4 GiB) addresses. 64-bit wide data has been around since FORTRAN appeared during the middle ages.

[sjl]

Write an app that uses 64-bit addressing and has a GUI or uses any of the Cocoa frameworks. You can't.

Windows 64-bit doesn't force you to run a 64-bit app from a command line in a terminal window - Apple does.

That's lame.

You obviously don't understand how Unix works (or what Apple's intent is). The idea is very straightforward: write a nice GUI that displays whatever needs displaying. When you need to do work that requires the 64 bit addressing, you launch, from within the 32 bit "shell", the 64 bit code as a subprocess. Unix has a very nice IPC (inter-process communication) framework; OS X, having all the Unix APIs available, gets that free.

That way, you get the best of both worlds: the GUI stays uncluttered with 64-bit address spaces that it really doesn't need, so stays nice and snappy, and the sub-system can do the grunt work in its 64 bit environment. I can't think of any reason why you would need to do the grunt work in the same address space as the GUI code; all you would need to pass back would be the end results, and they should take significantly less space.

So it's not as big a deal as you're making out. IPC is really not that hard; hell, if you're doing threaded programming, you're already making use of a fair chunk of IPC. All that differs is that the address space of the processes is not shared; most Unixes include the ability to create shared memory, or you can just use one of the other mechanisms available (such as pipes).

[Drummerboy]

Assuming 64-bit would be adopted by Mac within the next 12 months (seems to be the common assumption) would they only push the 64-bit to the Pro product line or all products?

If they moved all products to 64-bit, how long would it take before new software, including games, would only be 64-bit?

I'm concerned with my yet-to-ship MBP that it will be able to use new software within the next 3 years minimum (hoping to get 5 years out of the MBP).

Edit:
After mulling it over I figured that I shouldn't be too concerned with lack of software in the years to come considering Apple hasn't even flushed out the rest of their products yet. Assuming the MBP is supposedly the mobile "cream of the crop" (barring the 17") MBP owners (including myself) should be fine.

[oli84]

What does Intel's roadmap currently look like right now? Does it go this way:

1. Merom - 65nm running on the Napa platform
2. Merom - 65nm running on the Santa Rosa platform with 800mhz bus
3. Merom - 45nm iteration

??

If so, how big would you say is the jump from 65nm to 45nm in terms of performance and clock speed?

[capone2]

Why does anyone want a 64-bit notebook? With Intel X86 architecture the only thing "64-bit" adds is the ability to address more than 4GB of RAM. Unless you actually install and use 8GB or 16GB in the notebook the 64-bit stuff is usless. Not much changes betwen the 32 and 64 bit CPUs except the size of pointers. They all do 80-bit floating point math and 32 bit integers.

The way to buy a computer is always to wait until the last possable minute and then buy whatever is available at your price point at that time. There is _always_ something better comming out in a few months so wait as long as you can but not a day longer

64bit question ? some big reasons 1) its the near future of computing
2) you will be able to boot Windows Vista
3) perfomance, graphics
4) Ram

[Anonymous Freak]

What does Intel's roadmap currently look like right now? Does it go this way:

1. Merom - 65nm running on the Napa platform
2. Merom - 65nm running on the Santa Rosa platform with 800mhz bus
3. Merom - 45nm iteration

??

If so, how big would you say is the jump from 65nm to 45nm in terms of performance and clock speed?

Based on past similar refreshes, you'll see no performance increase simply because of the die shrink, (at same clockspeeds,) but you will see higher clockspeeds, and lower power consumption at equal clockspeeds. Intel ususally aims for 50% clock speed increase with each die shrink (from the then-present max speed, usually 100% from the initial max speed.) So, for example, Pentium 4 hit 2.0 GHz on its original 180 nm process, 130 nm hit 3.2 GHz. 90 nm was a bit of a disappointment, only increasing that to 3.8 GHz. But with some of those process changes, other changes were introduced, too.

If Merom's 45 nm die shrink is PURELY a die shrink, then clock speed is the only improvement. And with Intel, usually if it's more than just a die shrink, the chip gets a new codename. So if it really is 'Merom 45 nm', then it will just be a die shrink, with no new features.

[RoboCop001]

I'm looking to get a MacBook Pro this year. But with everything moving towards 64-bit, I'm wondering if I should wait for the 64 MBP.

I'd like for it to last around 5 years. I'd be upgrading from this 350MHz G3 iMac. It's 5 years old, maybe 6, and other than the expected slowness with certain apps, it's running very well on 10.3.9. That's how I'd like my MBP to be in 5 years. Although the MBP I'd get would be the top-of-the-line model, whereas the iMac was the bottom of the line. So I think it might even last a bit more than 5 years.

But in terms of software, I'll deffinetly be using at least 1 pro application. If I got a 32-bit MacBook Pro this month, would it last me 5 years software-wise?

Or are companies, especially Apple, going to start making 64-bit exclusive applications soon after the 64-bit MBP arrives? Chances are I'd be using Apple pro apps like Logic and FinalCut, for example.

[iHeartTheApple]

I'm looking to get a MacBook Pro this year. But with everything moving towards 64-bit, I'm wondering if I should wait for the 64 MBP.

Good point. I'm wondering this, too. Is Apple planning on switching all hardware (even the new Yonah-based macs) to the 64-bit merom or conroe/woodcrest processors by the end of this year? Apologies if this has already been asked/answered in this thread, but it's moving too fast for me to keep up. I'm not one of those people complaining about the fact that Apple may be pushing new CPUs into their compies too fast (I'm all for it!:) ) , I just want to know what the plan is so I can decide whether I should wait for them or buy one of the new Yonah macs now.

[mrfop]

The general impression that I've got from this thread is to hold fire if you can. However, I want to use (and buy) Logic Pro for a mac now, and I might as well get an Intel machine to do it using Logic 7.2. I'm reasoning that it would be a good idea to buy a 17inch iMac until Merom comes on the scene, and then at the end of the year buy a Merom equipped MBP. See my thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=186299) here detailing my thoughts.

In short, there are a number of noise issues with the current MBP that may hinder my audio work (yes many have no problem, but there appears to be an element of chance with this). There is a wait on the MBP (3-4 weeks on BTO shipping), and Merom is creeping ever closer whilst we wait. And the idea that software developers (for me audio software is crucial) may not support 32 bit a few years down the line, well, I shudder to think ... I expect my MBP to last a fair few years!

The new iMac's are quiet (not a buzz in sight! With or without the use of iSight ;) ), plus if I get a 17 inch with 1GB Ram, I save nearly &#163;800 as compared to 2.0 Ghz, 7200, 256 Graphix, 1GB MBP I was going to purchase. Plus the iMac would reach me a few days and might be handy in the future as a seperate node for Logic!

Let me know you thoughts, I challenge anyone to convince me to buy a MBP now! :p :D

Laters.

[generik]

But, "better performance" can mean "more paying users" - especially if your competitors start advertising how much faster they are on the latest 64-bit PowerMacIntels. (Remember the typical 20% performance improvement just from recompiling for 64-bit....)


I'm not sure about the Conroe, but to date no Intel gets improved performance from 64 bit compilation. Intel's IA64 is merely a 64 bit implementation in name, with no hardware support to boot.

[Anonymous Freak]

I'm not sure about the Conroe, but to date no Intel gets improved performance from 64 bit compilation. Intel's IA64 is merely a 64 bit implementation in name, with no hardware support to boot.

What are you talking about? It is an exact duplicate of AMD's 64-bit extension to the x86 architecture. That includes the extra registers. The extra registers alone give up to a 20% boost in speed. (See other posts and links ad nauseum.)

The desktop Pentium 4/Pentium D does indeed support more than 4 GB of RAM.

Now, to make it even worse, you're using terminology for a completely different horse. IA64 is the name for the Itanium's architecture, a completely different architecture than x86, which is probably one of the most efficient 64-bit platforms out there. It just suffers from extremely high power draw, horrible marketing, and little software support. But at 1.5 GHz, it can outrun just about any other chip out there in floating point. (Yes, it even crushes IBM's POWER series.)

IA32 = x86, the line from the 386 through the latest Pentiums, Athlons, and now Core Duo.
IA64 = Itanium, a much-maligned, but technically very good architecture.
AMD64 = x86 with 64-bit bolted on, Intel calls this EM64T.

The confusion comes from the fact that when AMD came out with their 64-bit extensions, Intel immediately dismissed it as 'not really 64-bit', because they were pushing Itanium. Well, Intel changed their mind, under pressure from low-end server proponents, and introduced AMD's extensions as 'Extended Memory 64-bit Technology', or EM64T, to downplay the '64-bitness' of it as solely being memory-addressing. Well, it's more than that, and now Intel has wholeheartedly embraced it. Too bad it's too late (for their marketing droids, anyway,) to take back their dismissal of it as 'just memory addressing'.

[Drummerboy]

Attempting to put two and two together:
I keep hearing the Merom and Conroe referred to as processors with 64-bit extensions.
Are these extensions similar to the MMX extensions of long ago?
The case with MMX was that you could still use new software that was coming out. The software would check if you had MMX and would inturn use the optimized MMX code (no MMX caused lower quality graphics for games).
Does this mean that the OS's will remain compatible with the 32-bit Core?
If yes, does that mean that software only needs to be retooled if it wants to take advantage of the 64-bit extentions?
So in turn does that mean that based on current information software for at while should still run on the Core Duo & Solo hardware, just that it won't be as accelerated as it could be?

Edit:
If the "EM64T" extension turns out to be similar to "MMX" extensions then its not a full-architecture change requiring full OS and software changes and is no different than any other speed increase Intel does. Therefore waiting for this is no different than waiting to buy a computer because a faster processor will be coming soon.

[raster]

Does anyone know why Intel has such stupid, disjointed names for there processors. ie. Merom, Woodcrest, Conroe. Do they mean anything or do they think they are being cool?

[~Shard~]

Does anyone know why Intel has such stupid, disjointed names for there processors. ie. Merom, Woodcrest, Conroe. Do they mean anything or do they think they are being cool?

All of Intel's processor names are geographical locations chosen by the team that designed the processor. Most of the "nature" sounding ones of the past refer to places in the northwest United States, since the design team is in Portland, Oregon. Most of the "Bible" sounding ones (Yonah, Merom, Conroe), refer to places around Haifa, Israel, where the design team for those processors is based.

Consider yourself ignorant to this matter no longer. :cool:

And don't worry, I'm sure many people think "Brooklyn" would be a stupid, disjointed name as well. :p

[raster]

All of Intel's processor names are geographical locations chosen by the team that designed the processor. Most of the "nature" sounding ones of the past refer to places in the northwest United States, since the design team is in Portland, Oregon. Most of the "Bible" sounding ones (Yonah, Merom, Conroe), refer to places around Haifa, Israel, where the design team for those processors is based.

Consider yourself ignorant to this matter no longer. :cool:

And don't worry, I'm sure many people think "Brooklyn" would be a stupid, disjointed name as well. :p
I wouldn't call a processor Brooklyn,
Oh I see you are in Canada...

[~Shard~]

I wouldn't call a processor Brooklyn,

Nor would I. Hence my point. :cool:

Oh I see you are in Canada...

Why yes I am, how observant of you! :D

[Drummerboy]

Does anyone have any thoughts on my post #125 of this thread in regards to EM64T being similar to MMX?

[RollTide]

I am a college student, and a Mac fan for a couple years now, even though I have never owned one. I have read many posts and have tried to keep up with the recent Apple systems. I am definetly ready to become a switcher. I am looking at the Macbook very heavily, but I was wondering about a few things. I like to play games, like Call of Duty, Halo and games that take up as much or more of my comp.(although games aren't extremely important, but it's nice to know that you can, and with a 128 gb vcard, you can) I also like to do a little photowork, which I figure mac has to be better than what I have now and do it faster. I know that office 2003 should work well under Rosetta, especially with a core duo. with one gb ram, probably all I need. I was going to get a Macbook when they came out, but honestly I only need it right before school, so I might as well wait until leopard comes out and also hope the price drops a little over a few months. The thing I did not want to wait for was mermon( sry bout my spelling) I have heard mixed predictions about 64 bit, and as speed is not extremely important for me, and as long as programs are written in 32 bit for a few years, I will be happy, basically I want to know that for the things I will use it for will 32 bit and the Mac be good for me

I appreciate any help

PS. 32 bit programs will be around for a few years right?

[Anonymous Freak]

Attempting to put two and two together:
I keep hearing the Merom and Conroe referred to as processors with 64-bit extensions.
Are these extensions similar to the MMX extensions of long ago?
The case with MMX was that you could still use new software that was coming out. The software would check if you had MMX and would inturn use the optimized MMX code (no MMX caused lower quality graphics for games).
Does this mean that the OS's will remain compatible with the 32-bit Core?
If yes, does that mean that software only needs to be retooled if it wants to take advantage of the 64-bit extentions?
So in turn does that mean that based on current information software for at while should still run on the Core Duo & Solo hardware, just that it won't be as accelerated as it could be?

Edit:
If the "EM64T" extension turns out to be similar to "MMX" extensions then its not a full-architecture change requiring full OS and software changes and is no different than any other speed increase Intel does. Therefore waiting for this is no different than waiting to buy a computer because a faster processor will be coming soon.

No, it it more like the move from 16-bit to 32-bit with the introduction of the 386. Whereas MMX was something that an individual process could choose to use or not, EM64T/AMD64 is different. It is a new operating mode of the processor. It is possible to force the processor to switch between 32-bit and 64-bit mode, but you get a MAJOR performance hit. It is significantly better to run the processor in 64-bit mode the whole time. That is why on Windows, you need a whole new version of Windows (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition) to run in 64-bit mode.

MMX is a set of extra instructions. (Same with SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and AltiVec.) A program just tries to send the new instructions to the processor, and if the processor understands it, it uses it. If not, then the processor sends an error. x86's 64-bit mode is one where the processor needs to be put into '64-bit mode', then you send 64-bit data to it, and execute 64-bit instructions. If you want to run 32-bit processes, you need to take the entire processor out of 64-bit mode to run 32-bit processes. Because in a modern multithreaded OS, it isn't feasable to kill all 64-bit processes every time you want to run a 32-bit one, Microsoft gets around this by basically emulating the 32-bit mode INSIDE the 64-bit mode. (Vaguely similar in theory to Rosetta, but without the performance hit, since it is just 'padding' the 32-bit data into 64-bit data, and passing the 32-bit instructions through to their 64-bit counterparts.)

Yes, early on, Intel denegrated AMD's 64-bit extensions by attempting to put x64 on par with MMX as 'just an extension'. But in reality, it is basically a new architecture that happens to have the same instruction set as x86, only supporting 64-bit. Just as adding 32-bit to the 386 was essentially a new 32-bit archtiecture, rather than 'just an extension' of the 16-bit 286.

This is different than 64-bit on PowerPC, where you don't need to shift the processor into a different mode, you just have to have an OS that recognizes the 64-bit-ness, and allows applications to access the larger address space, and work on 64-bit chunks of data.

What this means is that OS X 10.4.5 for Intel will theoretically work on the new 64-bit Intel Macs (of course, Apple always blocks using an older OS on a newer model, but in theory it would work,) but it would only operate in 32-bit mode. Likewise, if Apple were to compile OS X 10.4.8 (for example,) for 64-bit Intel when Conroe comes out, and NOT for 32-bit Intel, it wouldn't boot at all on the current iMac, MacBook Pro, or mini.

That means that if Apple does release a 64-bit version of OS X Intel, they will have THREE code branches to maintain... PPC, 32-bit Intel, and 64-bit Intel. (PPC, wether 64-bit or 32-bit, isn't that much different to require a completely separate code base. x86 is different enough.) That could mean three 10.5 install discs, one for 32-bit Intel, one for PPC, and one for 64-bit Intel.

Does anyone have any thoughts on my post #125 of this thread in regards to EM64T being similar to MMX?

Hopefully this answers it for you. :-D

And yes, RollTide, 32-bit apps will be around for a while. Either that, or Apple will have to offer everyone who bought an iMac, MBP, or mini an exchange for a new 64-bit equivalent later this year.

[sdot]

when these macbook pros get released, will they include leopard? in september?

[Drummerboy]

ehurtley,
Noting that you have the MBP, do you have any second thoughts now as far as not waiting for the Merom (now appearing to be coming late this year/early next)?

[~Shard~]

when these macbook pros get released, will they include leopard? in september?

No. Leopard will not be released that soon. We are only getting a preview of it in August at WWDC, so it will not be available until 2007. :cool:

[Anonymous Freak]

ehurtley,
Noting that you have the MBP, do you have any second thoughts now as far as not waiting for the Merom (now appearing to be coming late this year/early next)?

None at all. My old PowerBook was getting really flaky (after having been dropped a few times over the years,) so I really needed a new notebook. Had Steve-o released 2.0 GHz PowerBook G4's, I would have gotten one of those instead. (Had he not released any new 'pro' notebook, or yet another not-speed-bumped G4, I would have likely gone for a used 1.5 GHz 15"er from 2004.)

And my desktop will be due for replacement this Fall, so I'll get a new Merom or Conroe based iMac later this year. (Or maybe even a Conroe or Woodcrest 'Mac Pro' if my business keeps going well.)

And Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest has been planned for release in Q3 of this year for some time. I knew full well that the 32-bit Yonah was a stopgap for Apple. Something to accelerate the transition, and that's it. (I honestly think that when Steve announced the transition, he had Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest in mind as the launch processors, but when Yonah was due so much earlier, he decided to do a crash intro of Yonah.)

[mrfop]

I knew full well that the 32-bit Yonah was a stopgap for Apple. Something to accelerate the transition, and that's it. (I honestly think that when Steve announced the transition, he had Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest in mind as the launch processors, but when Yonah was due so much earlier, he decided to do a crash intro of Yonah.)

I really need a Mac asap for audio production. I was gonna get the exact spec MBP you have, but I can wait for mobile work until the end of the year. I've more or less decided therefore to get the 17 iMac with 1*1GB Ram being the only upgrade (so stock 160 HD, 128 Graphix). This, I think, is the best option in my situation. I plan on using Logic and then later Ableton Live 6 and other midi plug-ins. I made the decision for the iMac after reading this merom thread; this was the last straw for me - the MBP has numerous rev a problems that I may or may not encounter (noise related, airport - less an issue on the imac - battery). Plus I'll get the iMac in a few days.

eHurtley, do you think the iMac is the best choice for me until merom MBPs arrive?

Cheers

Dave

[Surreal]

I really need a Mac asap for audio production.

i'm dying here. i have the money for a mac and i am going to buy one along with a MH2882 . but i KNOW i should wait to look at the 17". it is painful waiting. after akk of this time, i have the money...and there is even a computer i could be happy with...but daggumit i need to know i didnt short myself.

[Anonymous Freak]

I really need a Mac asap for audio production. I was gonna get the exact spec MBP you have, but I can wait for mobile work until the end of the year. I've more or less decided therefore to get the 17 iMac with 1*1GB Ram being the only upgrade (so stock 160 HD, 128 Graphix). This, I think, is the best option in my situation. I plan on using Logic and then later Ableton Live 6 and other midi plug-ins. I made the decision for the iMac after reading this merom thread; this was the last straw for me - the MBP has numerous rev a problems that I may or may not encounter (noise related, airport - less an issue on the imac - battery). Plus I'll get the iMac in a few days.

eHurtley, do you think the iMac is the best choice for me until merom MBPs arrive?

Cheers

Dave

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about audio production to give you a good answer. I know Logic is now Universal, but I have no idea about Ableton Live (or even what it is,) so I don't know if even going with an Intel system is a good choice for you right now. It might actually be your best bet to find a first-gen dual 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5 or something, if your apps aren't Universal yet.

If all your apps ARE universal, you may even be able to get away with a Core Duo Mini... (If you are doing almost entirely CPU-based processing, and not doing anything that requires a good video card.)

[clemensf]

I'm near to dying as well. But for other reasons ;-) -> I'm currently still Windows/Linux user with a crappy two-years-old consumer Thinkpad R40e, wich was the worst malinvestment I ever did. (Should have bought some G4 Powerbook or iBook these days). So by now I'm still a highly motivated "switcher".
With all the rumors and concerns about the 32bit yonah-stop-gap, I'm waiting for MBP 64 like all the others, as this notebook should at least last for 4 years. And I think as well, Apple and other software-producers wont deal with all the universal-binaries and emulation levels like rossetta for that period and sooner as we wish will only support 64-bit apps. (Wich will be only a logic step, as the 32bit Intel CoreDuo owners are only a small fraction of mac users, sacrificed for marketing issues, therefore unimportant in some months)
So I'm not interested in the current CoreDuo MacBooks at all (add those rumors about noise probs with which I'm already fed up with my thinkpad, makes my choice to wait even clearer...).
But my next concerns would be: Will the first release of MBP 64 bit be a half-hearted solution as well? And without Leopard released alongside, will there be fully 64bit support? Having in mind the mentioned "lame" PPC64bit support in Tiger and the current yonah intel-transition-process which was a giant mistake by apple and intel in my opinion, bad for both, users and Apple: Will there be again transition-solutions heading for 64bit? I hope apple wont do any big mistakes like the CoreDuo release in near future, releasing half-baked 64bitIntel technology...
Other concerns are power consumption and mobility. Will it be possible to use the MBP 64 longer than those "standard" two hours, wich is in my eyes the lowest end I could apreciate; should really be substandard by now - even some old heavy HP/Compaq "desktop notebooks" can run on battery for more than 5 hours using speedstep. Notebooks should have battery-capacity of at least 6-8 hours nowadays. 2-3 hours is not really mobile technology.
My next notebook should really feature way more mobility than my stupid thinkpad. And if somebody has any information on Airport's capacity/range/antennas on big campuses, maybe in comparison to other notebooks (Dells have very good built-in wlan-antennas) I would be pleased.
I'm planning to spent a lot of money... so there are lots of concerns ;-)

The MBP64 will be high-end-priced, so I really want to be sure, that it fits my needs and wont be a mispurchase, therefore I'm expecting high-end technology.
I made some really bad malinvestments in the past - including buying iPod Photo only weeks before the Video came out *args* and of course not to forget my crappy plastic-thinkpad *laugh* (you may laugh as well!)

[mrfop]

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about audio production to give you a good answer ...

If all your apps ARE universal, you may even be able to get away with a Core Duo Mini... (If you are doing almost entirely CPU-based processing, and not doing anything that requires a good video card.)

Yes I thought about the mini, but I have no spare monitor, and the HD is 5400 not 7200 - the latter being essential in audio.

An iMac it is then. Thanks for the feedback.

[studiomeridian]

I apologize if this question was answered already...but if the merom chip comes out, will it be completely compatible with the current Intel iMac? I know that it may increase RAM capability to 4 GB (and possibly beyond) but for the iMac, will it change the RAM type requirement? Won't a chip upgrade of this magnitude require a whole new motherboard design/specs? Will a simple processor chip exchange change the whole computer from a 32 bit to a 64 bit computer? I don't know but it just seems like it would require upgraded hardware. Any answers would help. Thanks!

[Drummerboy]

Will Apple enforce that software marked Universal to run on both 32-bit and 64-bit platforms?
Will Apple in a year start only releasing 64-bit versions of their OS?
This could lead to software to requiring that OS version thus enabling software to discontinue supporting 32-bit platforms.
Anyone think the Merom MBP's be close in price to the high-end Core Duo's or are we talking over $3000 (pushing out of my price range)?

I keep hearing mixed delivery times of the Merom ranging from next month to next year and I am still waiting for my MBP to ship. :confused:
My concern is the possibilities of no 32-bit development after a year or two. I am not concerned about it being a faster proc as I am well aware of Moore's Law. I want this laptop to last 4 years with very little compatibility issues and in two years the Core Duo may have many compatibility issues due to lack of 64-bit capabilities.
I'm currently using a Thinkpad 570 (yup, P2-333) and a P3-1000 Franken-puter (pieced together) for a desktop so I can get by for just a bit (painfully). This would be my first Mac.

[Max on Macs]

Can't wait all of the panic-induced "should I sell my current macbook/powerbook/whatever for the new Macs?" threads.

:D
These threads can be so funny - and so stupid too. Bu the bloody machine when you want to buy a machine, and if you can afford to buy another one tomorrow because tomorrow is when it comes out then do it. If not then don't. I can't undrstand all these people who are constantly selling their old machines and buying the new ones at minimum spec just because they're new. I buy new machines when they come out because I can afford to, but there's no way I'm I'm going to the inconvenience of selling a machine a few weeks or whatever before a new one comes out just so I can get a bit of cash for it.

[daneoni]

i personally don't see what the fuss is all about. I'm gonna wait till i can have at least 4 cores in my notebook 4-8GB RAM, Blu-Ray/HD-DVD (which ever becomes industry standard), at least 250GB HDD storage, 1000+FSB, native 64 bit apps & Mac OS 10.X....actually i dunno about that last part. To be frank leopard isn't getting me all that excited i might even skip Mac OS 10.5 all together unless the fix the safari memory leakage issue. I know some people who still use panther with no qualms.

My last machine for a while would've been the last powerbook revision had they not had the "line on screen and audio looping problems" BUT now i'm honestly happy with my MacBook Pro and will be for a while.

I'm sure there are one or two things, but i don't think i'll see a difference between a Dual Core Yonah and a Dual Core Merom in real life usage as far as im concerned its like a 1.5GHz to 1.67GHz G4 upgrade. Quad Core or Dual Quad Core Meroms? whoa!, then we'll talk

[~Shard~]

i personally don't see what the fuss is all about. I'm gonna wait till i can have at least 4 cores in my notebook 4-8GB RAM, Blu-Ray/HD-DVD (which ever becomes industry standard), at least 250GB HDD storage, 1000+FSB, native 64 bit apps & Mac OS 10.X

And the best part is, when all those things are readily available, there will be technology much better than it "coming soon" which you will then want to wait for instead. Trust me, you'll never win. :p :D

To be frank leopard isn't getting me all that excited

Why? What have you seen on Leopard so far that doesn't excite you? Apple has not released any official details regarding Leopard whatsoever, so you're basiing your comment on... nothing? :confused: :rolleyes:

[sketchybmxer]

I cant see why people are worred about the "yonah 9 month shelf life" and not being able to just plug in the new fabled 64 chip when it does come out.
if your wanting one because you need a faster computer (like i do)and you like the look of one,then get it because as said before there will always be a faster one in the pipeline.
im happy having an imac with a swappable cpu,thats a little slower than the current spec as it ages,mabe im thinking this because im useing a 1ghz 12" powerbook with panther,which i obioviosly cant upgrade(apart from the os),unless i want to buy a whole logic board,so anything of the new range will be an impovement!

one last thing,if apple were hoping to initially intending to ship the intel imac with with a 64 chip but couldnt,i still would have thought they would atleast make the mobo`s chipset compatable with the anticipated upgrade(unless its simply also unavalable/not needed),i must admit i dont know much about that aspect,im guessing thats apple`s way of throwing a "spanner in the works"of any would-be home upgrader

few days till my new imac arrives.....:D

[Anonymous Freak]

I apologize if this question was answered already...but if the merom chip comes out, will it be completely compatible with the current Intel iMac? I know that it may increase RAM capability to 4 GB (and possibly beyond) but for the iMac, will it change the RAM type requirement? Won't a chip upgrade of this magnitude require a whole new motherboard design/specs? Will a simple processor chip exchange change the whole computer from a 32 bit to a 64 bit computer? I don't know but it just seems like it would require upgraded hardware. Any answers would help. Thanks!

At this point, it's still unclear. Intel has said that Merom will work with a chipset that has the same codename that the Core Duo's chipset had, but that doesn't guarantee drop-in compatibility.

IF the currently shipping chipset is already 64-bit compatible, and IF Merom has the same power requirements (mainly Voltage,) and IF Merom uses the same socket, then it would very likely be drop-in compatible with a firmware update from Apple. Based on past systems, though, I doubt Apple would update the firmware. (Although an enterprising third party could do so.)

But, based on past INTEL experiences, in all likelihood, at least the power requirements will change, and more liekly it will require a revision of the chipset. It might be a 'drop-in' replacement for the manufacturer (i.e. replace the older chipset chip with a new chip that is 100% pin-compatible,) but not a simple processor swap for the end user. It's also possible that Apple would decide to use the desktop chip (codenamed Conroe,) instead of the laptop chip (Merom) in the iMac. Conroe is planned to have a faster front side bus, so that almost guarantees no drop-in replacement to Conroe. (Conroe will probably also use a socket more similar to the current Pentium 4 socket, rather than the socket currently used by Core Duo.)

It's almost guaranteed that the memory will be the same, though. (Although Apple might use the upgrade as an opportunity to change the iMac from laptop-style SO-DIMMs to desktop-style DIMMs.)

I'm sure there are one or two things, but i don't think i'll see a difference between a Dual Core Yonah and a Dual Core Merom in real life usage as far as im concerned its like a 1.5GHz to 1.67GHz G4 upgrade. Quad Core or Dual Quad Core Meroms?

Well, Intel claims that at the same power draw, Merom will be 20% faster than Yonah. That most likely means 20% faster clock speed for the same power draw; but it could mean 10% faster clock and 10% faster per clock.

And Intel's current roadmap doesn't show quad+ core laptop chips anywhere. It shows quad+ core server chips and quad core "super desktop" chips in late '07. (The "super desktop" chips will just be the same server chips re-branded as desktop chips, like the 'Pentium 4 Extreme Edition'.)

[nhkader]

I am a college student, and a Mac fan for a couple years now, even though I have never owned one. I have read many posts and have tried to keep up with the recent Apple systems. I am definetly ready to become a switcher. I am looking at the Macbook very heavily, but I was wondering about a few things. I like to play games, like Call of Duty, Halo and games that take up as much or more of my comp.(although games aren't extremely important, but it's nice to know that you can, and with a 128 gb vcard, you can) I also like to do a little photowork, which I figure mac has to be better than what I have now and do it faster. I know that office 2003 should work well under Rosetta, especially with a core duo. with one gb ram, probably all I need. I was going to get a Macbook when they came out, but honestly I only need it right before school, so I might as well wait until leopard comes out and also hope the price drops a little over a few months. The thing I did not want to wait for was mermon( sry bout my spelling) I have heard mixed predictions about 64 bit, and as speed is not extremely important for me, and as long as programs are written in 32 bit for a few years, I will be happy, basically I want to know that for the things I will use it for will 32 bit and the Mac be good for me

I appreciate any help

PS. 32 bit programs will be around for a few years right?

You seem to answer all your questions anyway.

BTW: Just a hint. Better grammar and improved punctuation can go a long way to making your post more readable. Trust me, you will need those skills in college.

[Atlasland]

BTW: Just a hint. Better grammar and improved punctuation can go a long way to making your post more readable. Trust me, you will need those skills in college.

Those kind of posts give me a headache. Why don't people use paragraphs?

[rxse7en]

A previous post linked to a story claiming that Merom would be delayed because MS Vista was delayed. I would hate to think that Apple would impacted because of a Vista rewrite. If Apple has 10.5 ready and Merom MacBooks ready to go this could be why the analysts are saying that Apple has the potential to take a nice little bite out of the market this Fall. Again, I just hope that Apple is not delayed because Intel wants to hold out for Vista. Anyone with more insight into the situation want to chime in?

B

[gnasher729]

Your reasoning makes sense, but you also need to consider that there really won't be that many MacIntels sold during the "9 months of Yonah" - compared to the number sold this fall after 64-bit chips are available on every MacIntel from the low end to the high end. And, the MacIntels that are currently being sold are primarily lower-end systems - the 64-bit systems will be higher-end.

If I had the choice between products from two companies, one running everywhere, but at slightly lower speed, whereas the other company told half their potential customer to **** off, for a ten or twenty percent speed gain, I would choose the first company. Even if I am one of the lucky ones with newer hardware, what will happen when _my_ hardware is out-of-date? Someone who treats half their potential customers badly today will one day treat you badly.

[Towel]

Why are so many people hyperventilating about 64-bit chips? Yes, within a couple of years all CPUs will be 64-bit capable. But it's going to be years beyond that before there is any sort of universal benefit to running on 64-bit hardware, and more years before running such hardware becomes a requirement. Some simple guideposts:

1. The G5 was and still is Apple's only 64-bit CPU. PowerBooks have never been 64-bit. By definition, no Mac pros have ever done mobile 64-bit computing.
2. The only bits of OS X that are 64-bit-capable are the kernel/BSD components. You cannot, right now, create a 64-bit-aware GUI application. At all. The only 64-bit-aware apps are specialized (mostly scientific) apps that are command-line only. (Yes, some mathematical apps can tie into these command-line tools to make certain functions 64-bit-aware, but these hardly affect the general computing audience.)
3. Until Apple updates OS X to be 64-bit-aware throughout, and similarly updates XCode to compile 64-bit GUI apps, there will continue to be no 64-bit-aware GUI apps.
4. After Apple finishes #3, there will be a long delay while major software publishers wait until the next rev of their apps to recompile for 64-bit-ness. Think Intel transition all over again. How fast is that going, when the tools have been around for a year already? Adobe is waiting two years to release Intel-native apps. Expect as long of a delay for 64-bit-ness.
5. Even after all developers start compiling 64-bit-aware apps, it will be years longer before they drop support for 32-bit versions.

My back-of-the-envelope timeline would be that all of Apple's CPUs will be 64-bit by the end of 2007, at the earliest. Leopard *might* be through-and-through 64-bit-aware, and should be released by summer 2007. I would expect, then, that 64-bit apps will start appearing in late 2007 at the earliest. And that most apps won't be 64-bit-aware before the end of 2008. And, finally, that 32-bit compatibility won't be dropped for at least two years after that, around 2010.

So please, stop hyperventilating about whether the MBP is a "Yikes" or the CD is a dead end. The horizon for 64-bit apps making a realistic impact on most of our lives is so far off that it's almost absurd to be worrying about it now. The CoreDuo is a kick-ass chip, and the MBP is a kick-ass computer.

[Towel]

Finally, regarding the kick-ass-ness of the CoreDuo MBP - you need to keep in mind just what a big deal the move to dual cores is, especially for a laptop. Anyone who uses a dual-proc PowerMac can tell you that multiple CPUs makes a real, immediate, universal, and enormous difference in perceived performance. Even if an individual app isn't multi-proc aware, the system is - and because most of us run many apps/processes at once, the effect is immensely noticeable. If you like to buy after a transformative increase in performance - and we all do - this was it for Apple laptops. By comparison, until the 4/8GB RAM ceiling becomes an impediment to general users, the benefits of 64-bit-ness are going to be only very gradual and very subtle.

[ghstmars]

Merom is not being delayed. It is on track to being delivered in Q3 '06 ( industry insiders say September ) with an update to the current chipset, so it could take advantage of its 64 bitness, napa 64. What is being delayed is the new chipset Santa Rosa, which updates the bus to 800mhz, and will incorporate all specs of wifi b/a/g/n and wimax. support for a more advance integrated graphic card, and support for hdmi. The reason for the delayed, late in Q1 '07, was due to pressures from oem that wanted more time with the old chipset so they could make $$$. Intel is fully prepared to introduced merom and santa rosa in Q3 '06 when they introduce all the new desktop replacements. as a matter a fact Merom is just a drop 'n replacement of Yohan ( Core Duo ). Sorry for my long post. especially my 1st post.

[gusto5]

And that is Yonah, btw :)

[ryanh888]

So I'm one of those people wondering if I should buy the current MBP or wait for the Merom chip to come out... and I have just a few questions.

I'm not the most computer savvy person in the world, but... If you buy the Merom (64 bit) MBP's when they come out will you be able to run apps made for 32 bit? Or will you have to wait for the 64 bit apps to come out? If the 32 bit apps can run on 64 bit machine, will they be slower than on a 32 bit machine?

Do you guys think Rev 1 of the new 64 bit MBP's will have pretty significant problems?

[ryanh888]

accidentally submitted that last one unfinished....

but yea... I'm just so confused. I can wait to purchase a new computer untill around Christmas of 2006. Do you guys think Merom MBP's will be out by then?

I'm also wondering why Apple would release their new flagship 17 inch MBP's with yonah so close to the date Merom is supposed to be coming out... This leads me to believe that the Merom chips may be delayed.... I dont know... what do you guys think??

Thanks a lot for any help you guys can give!

[powerbook911]

So I'm one of those people wondering if I should buy the current MBP or wait for the Merom chip to come out... and I have just a few questions.

I'm not the most computer savvy person in the world, but... If you buy the Merom (64 bit) MBP's when they come out will you be able to run apps made for 32 bit? Or will you have to wait for the 64 bit apps to come out? If the 32 bit apps can run on 64 bit machine, will they be slower than on a 32 bit machine?

Do you guys think Rev 1 of the new 64 bit MBP's will have pretty significant problems?

The 32 bit applications will run fine.

No, I do not think rev1 will have significant problems. It is going to be basically the current MBP, with the better chips. Apple will have already learned a lot from the MBP by then. Furthermore, Apple is already familiar with 64 bit stuff, from the G5s.

Now, in my opinion, Merom is an improvement, but it isn't some radical earth shattering improvement.

[^squirrel^]

I know it's not a major improvment, but i'm sure most of you like me, if you bought a MBP in July/August and then in September they release the Merom at the same price you'd be pretty ticked off.

I still think if you can hold out, then wait until Setpember. I know its hard as i'm doing the same thing but it'll all be worth it in the end.

[Endow]

.

[^squirrel^]

I just wanted to bump this thread as I've been reading on an Asus forum that they probably won't get the Merom until Q4.

Do you think this will be the same for Apple or will they announce something at the developer conference in August?

If they are going to announce that their OS is going to be 64bit then surely they will want a machine that is 64bit capable.

[~Shard~]

If they are going to announce that their OS is going to be 64bit then surely they will want a machine that is 64bit capable.

And they will have one at WWDC when they announce the Conroe PowerMacs. Problem solved. :cool:

[Jowl]

A very intersting thread.

The outcome is, after changing my mind 4 during the thread, I'm going a ahead with my plan to purchase a Core Duo Mini for my media Computer. It's enough to play HD content that I have on hard drive for now. When 64 OS + Apps are common place, I'll upgrade to one with HD-DVD/Blu-ray and 64bit CPU.

Otherwise you're forever chasing Specs.

[firestarter]

Why are so many people hyperventilating about 64-bit chips? Yes, within a couple of years all CPUs will be 64-bit capable. But it's going to be years beyond that before there is any sort of universal benefit to running on 64-bit hardware, and more years before running such hardware becomes a requirement. Some simple guideposts:

1. The G5 was and still is Apple's only 64-bit CPU. PowerBooks have never been 64-bit. By definition, no Mac pros have ever done mobile 64-bit computing.
2. The only bits of OS X that are 64-bit-capable are the kernel/BSD components. You cannot, right now, create a 64-bit-aware GUI application. At all. The only 64-bit-aware apps are specialized (mostly scientific) apps that are command-line only. (Yes, some mathematical apps can tie into these command-line tools to make certain functions 64-bit-aware, but these hardly affect the general computing audience.)
3. Until Apple updates OS X to be 64-bit-aware throughout, and similarly updates XCode to compile 64-bit GUI apps, there will continue to be no 64-bit-aware GUI apps.
4. After Apple finishes #3, there will be a long delay while major software publishers wait until the next rev of their apps to recompile for 64-bit-ness. Think Intel transition all over again. How fast is that going, when the tools have been around for a year already? Adobe is waiting two years to release Intel-native apps. Expect as long of a delay for 64-bit-ness.
5. Even after all developers start compiling 64-bit-aware apps, it will be years longer before they drop support for 32-bit versions.

My back-of-the-envelope timeline would be that all of Apple's CPUs will be 64-bit by the end of 2007, at the earliest. Leopard *might* be through-and-through 64-bit-aware, and should be released by summer 2007. I would expect, then, that 64-bit apps will start appearing in late 2007 at the earliest. And that most apps won't be 64-bit-aware before the end of 2008. And, finally, that 32-bit compatibility won't be dropped for at least two years after that, around 2010.

So please, stop hyperventilating about whether the MBP is a "Yikes" or the CD is a dead end. The horizon for 64-bit apps making a realistic impact on most of our lives is so far off that it's almost absurd to be worrying about it now. The CoreDuo is a kick-ass chip, and the MBP is a kick-ass computer.

OK - a lot of what you say was correct from a G4 / G5 standpoint, but is plain wrong from an x86 standpoint.

G5 64 bitness was nice for extreme power users, because it let you use much more memory - and the point you make (that most folks wouldn't miss it) is true.

The x86 is different. In a lot of ways, the x86 is a seriously compromised design, with too few and too small a range of registers (very short term storage) in the CPU - this adversely affects performance. In developing 64bit instructions, AMD significantly boosted the number of registers available, and this provides a sizable speedup for everyday code (20% or more) in addition to providing the power-user-friendly big memory benefits.

So, 64bit is something Apple need to get on to ASAP on Intel, if they want to get the maximum speed out of upcoming Intel CPUs, and stay speed competative with 64 bit Vista.

[firestarter]

Hey there guys.I'm new here :)

So last january I purchased a new Powerbook G4 and a week later the MBP was announced.I decided I wasn't going to be betrayed in such a way so I returned my PB.

I waited for the MBP and after reading some reviews I got a bit scared about the problems and such.But they were fixed.I was decided to buy it.

But after hearing these news (and by now you are thinking "he's tech paranoid") I just stopped to think again since this is going to be my first very own computer and it has to last for a long time (5/6 years) :


Isn't the computer world bound to revolve around 64bit processing in the near future?I know new OSs will surely be 64bit and alot of applications and new games.

My problem isn't speed per se but not beeing able to run new software because I'm bound to 32 processing.


My question : I am doing the right thing right?Also do you think the new MBP with Merom processor will be released in 2007?Cause I'm desperate to get my hands on a computer but I don't wanna be dumb and then have to suffer by not getting full support as I should for the platform that I choose.

No - I think you should look at this a slightly different way...

Buying the very most expensive cutting edge stuff will never be a very cost effective way of working. 5/6 years is also a very long time to expect a computer to last.

Consider paying 2/3 of your budget for a lower spec model, then selling (Macs keep their value well) and buying again in 30 months. You'll end up with higher speed overall over that 5 year period, you shouldn't have to spend any more, and you won't need to be as paranoid about 'something big' coming out just after you've spent all your money.

Remember to budget for software and backup too...

[firestarter]

Finally, regarding the kick-ass-ness of the CoreDuo MBP - you need to keep in mind just what a big deal the move to dual cores is, especially for a laptop. Anyone who uses a dual-proc PowerMac can tell you that multiple CPUs makes a real, immediate, universal, and enormous difference in perceived performance. Even if an individual app isn't multi-proc aware, the system is - and because most of us run many apps/processes at once, the effect is immensely noticeable. If you like to buy after a transformative increase in performance - and we all do - this was it for Apple laptops. By comparison, until the 4/8GB RAM ceiling becomes an impediment to general users, the benefits of 64-bit-ness are going to be only very gradual and very subtle.

Check out SJL's post from a few pages back:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2212077&postcount=108

SJL explains why 64bit is a big deal in more detail than I do...

[^squirrel^]

And they will have one at WWDC when they announce the Conroe PowerMacs. Problem solved. :cool:

Cheeky :D

I really hope that they mention something about Merom. I'm going to hold out until Aug and then asses the situation. I'm not sure i could hold out any longer than Aug, but if they confirm the Merom for Sept then i could hold out until then.

Knowing Apple they like to keep things to them self until the last second. I'd like to think they would say something about the Merom, but knowing Apple they wont say anything!

Really dont want to part with £1800 on a MBP and then a few months later the Merom comes out.

[~Shard~]

Cheeky :D

Hey, what can I say, it's what I do. :D :cool:

I really hope that they mention something about Merom. I'm going to hold out until Aug and then asses the situation. I'm not sure i could hold out any longer than Aug, but if they confirm the Merom for Sept then i could hold out until then.

It will be interesting to see if they do or not. Apple hasn't really made a point in the past of referencing specific chip architectures, rather their computers themselves, so I'm not sure if they will really go out of their way to talk specifically about Merom. Guess we'll see...

Knowing Apple they like to keep things to them self until the last second. I'd like to think they would say something about the Merom, but knowing Apple they wont say anything!

I think this is the more likely scenario.... ;)

Really dont want to part with £1800 on a MBP and then a few months later the Merom comes out.

Welcome to the wonderful world of technology! :D Your machine will be obsolete before you buy it and there will always be something better coming along. Timing is not your friend when it comes to buying the latest technology.

Are you wanting the latest and greatest, or are you wanting Merom specifically? If you are wanting a Merom system specifically then your choice is pretty clear - wait for it. ;) However if you're just waiting for the latest and greatest, you'll always be waiting. Might as well hold off until Penryn.... :p :cool:

[macgeek2005]

What's Penryn?

And also, what is the diff between Merom and Yonah. Is it really that big a deal? What are the clock speeds of Merom?

[Photorun]

What's Penryn?

And also, what is the diff between Merom and Yonah. Is it really that big a deal? What are the clock speeds of Merom?

It's not so much clock speed but power consumption, which equates to better battery life, that and 64 bit... but 64 bit for now is a bit overrated, it's potential isn't fully realized yet and waiting around for just 64 bit would be foolhardy. It's not like when Merom comes out Yonah will be like the stone age. There's a difference but not massive. And remember a computer is a tool for the job, I know people still using G3 computers for basic tasks they do and it works for them. Buying something with a CoreDuo today, yeah, it's outdated the day you bought it, but it's not going to just quit working and it will do someone just fine for conceivably years of service.

[~Shard~]

It's not so much clock speed but power consumption, which equates to better battery life, that and 64 bit... but 64 bit for now is a bit overrated, it's potential isn't fully realized yet and waiting around for just 64 bit would be foolhardy. It's not like when Merom comes out Yonah will be like the stone age. There's a difference but not massive. And remember a computer is a tool for the job, I know people still using G3 computers for basic tasks they do and it works for them. Buying something with a CoreDuo today, yeah, it's outdated the day you bought it, but it's not going to just quit working and it will do someone just fine for conceivably years of service.

Well said, thanks for saving me some typing... ;)

The only thing I'll add to that for macgeek2005's benefit (since he asked) is that Penryn is the 45nm successor to Merom. Now you know. Glad to be of service. :cool:

[macgeek2005]

Well said, thanks for saving me some typing... ;)

The only thing I'll add to that for macgeek2005's benefit (since he asked) is that Penryn is the 45nm successor to Merom. Now you know. Glad to be of service. :cool:

ohhh so I better wait for the Penryn. ;)

No, but seirously, I think i'll get a Merom (Rev C) MacBook Pro, (or will that be Rev B?). Better battery life is important to me.

[Photorun]

I'm sure there are one or two things, but i don't think i'll see a difference between a Dual Core Yonah and a Dual Core Merom in real life usage...

Bingo. You win a prize. But seriously, at first not much, little longer battery life, maybe a half a dock icon hop faster for a application launch, or on the 40 Photoshop filter tests (when it becomes native) it'll do it in 2:38 as opposed to 2:52 CoreDuo... but overall initially not that huge a difference. Not unlike when the Pentium4 came out it wasn't tremdously faster than the Pentium3. Until the actual coding of software is done to take full advantage of a chips architecture the speed increases are rather negligible. People looking to get a MBP or iMac or Mini can expect happy computing for a good while. Me personally, I'll be getting a MBP because I have to next month then eBay it in a year if Merom is the beeknees or if it's not this incredible leap maybe even longer while 64 bit starts getting built into things. Like someone else wisely pointed out too, unless Leopard takes advantage of 64 bit or better yet UNTIL it is released and only if it does, not to mention think about it, Adobe and all the others, day to day, a 32 bit isn't going to be crushed by a 64 bit computing experience for some time to come.

Buy now, be happy.

[~Shard~]

ohhh so I better wait for the Penryn. ;)


Yep - don't get Yonah because Merom is coming. Oh, but don't get Merom because then Penryn will be coming. Oh, but don't get Penryn because... :p :D

Might as well just wait for the mythical Dunnington... :eek: :cool: Let me guess, you don't know what that is either...
:p ;)

[Photorun]

No, but seirously, I think i'll get a Merom (Rev C) MacBook Pro, (or will that be Rev B?). Better battery life is important to me.

Well then you better wait for Penryn because if battery life is important the energy consumption of that will be almost twice what Merom is and you said the RevC MBP which, as many kinks have been worked out of the current version, Rev B of a Merom Macbook pro could be possibly the second half of 2007... many of the older Powerbooks would go through a Rev in six months or more, that could happen. So you're going to wait for a Rev C... so possibly the end of 2007, at which point you may as wait for Penryn which is due in 2008. But as the Penryns are prepared the next die (32 nm?) is going to be announced for 2009/2010. So you may as well wait for a Rev B whatever-the-next processor is because why being on the trailing edge, right?

See, you're illustrating the point others have made, if you wait for the latest and greatest because something better is coming up... you'll always be waiting, because whatever you're buying is outdated.

[Photorun]

Yep - don't get Yonah because Merom is coming. Oh, but don't get Merom because then Penryn will be coming. Oh, but don't get Penryn because... :p :D

Might as well just wait for the mythical Dunnington... :eek: :cool: Let me guess, you don't know what that is either...
:p ;)

Haha, you were going where I was going Shard but shorter and more succinct! Thanks!:D

[sushi]

Yep - don't get Yonah because Merom is coming. Oh, but don't get Merom because then Penryn will be coming. Oh, but don't get Penryn because... :p :D

Might as well just wait for the mythical Dunnington... :eek: :cool: Let me guess, you don't know what that is either...
:p ;)
Good one Shard.

Both you and Photorun are hitting the nail on the head.

BTW, I am waiting for the Duo Duo Duo Core-Merom with Quad OverDrive! :D

[~Shard~]

Haha, you were going where I was going Shard but shorter and more succinct! Thanks!:D

No worries, apparently we make a good team. ;)

And glad you agree and approve sushi. Let me know when your duo duo duo core Merom arrives, I can't wait to see the benchmarks on that thing... on second thought, just post a couple screenshots of playing Pong on it instead... :p :D

Yep, it all comes down to this: if you play the waiting game, all you'll be doing is just that - waiting, while others are happily enjoying their Macs laughing at your needlessly self-imposed inaction. Enjoy a Mac, don't just think about enjoying a future Mac. :cool:

[macgeek2005]

Time out. The MacBook Pro WILL have a Merom Proccesor in August most likely, right? Good. I'll get one.

[zweigand]

Time out. The MacBook Pro WILL have a Merom Proccesor in August most likely, right? Good. I'll get one.
I think September will be the earliest we'll see Merom ..from what I have read.

[macgeek2005]

Big diff. I don't need it before september. Starting in september, i'll be moving back and forth alot between homes, and I need a computer with me everywhere.

[sushi]

Let me know when your duo duo duo core Merom arrives, I can't wait to see the benchmarks on that thing... on second thought, just post a couple screenshots of playing Pong on it instead... :p :D
Not sure about Pong -- might be too graphic intensive! :p

How about Solitaire? :D

Yep, it all comes down to this: if you play the waiting game, all you'll be doing is just that - waiting, while others are happily enjoying their Macs laughing at your needlessly self-imposed inaction. Enjoy a Mac, don't just think about enjoying a future Mac. :cool:
Now that the new Macs are are mostly in the Intel camp vice the PowerPC, I'm willing to bet that this type of discussion will become more prevalent for Mac users.

Those of us who have been in both camps already know how quickly the Wintel side of the house moves on the hardware side. Those that haven't are in for a different ride for sure.

It's almost like a one upping each other with the latest and greatest.

Hell, I've got about a two year old MoBo with an AMD Athlon XP 2500 that I've OC to 3200. Works just great for what I need but I keep drooling over the new stuff every week when I go to my local computer store(s). But as soon as I update, there will be something newer. It's a never ending cycle. My pocket book and wife (probably not in that order) keep my computer spending in check, thankfully (I think)! ;)

[exmacuser]

Why not just wait until Apple goes back to the PPC instead of wasting your money on POS x86 machines?

[~Shard~]

Not sure about Pong -- might be too graphic intensive! :p

How about Solitaire? :D



Only if you have it dual booted via Boot Camp into XP. :D

[Photorun]

Big diff. I don't need it before september. Starting in september, i'll be moving back and forth alot between homes, and I need a computer with me everywhere.

He said September was the earliest and from everything I've read September sounds about right for the chip to become available. If there's Apple supply problems getting Meron MBP to eager customers... and let's face it, Apple ALWAYS has supply issues for new product, you may realistically be looking at October.

Have to remember the other big announcement at WWDC may just be Conroe, which will finally bring the desktop line to Intel chips and complete the circle. That in and of itself may be a much much bigger deal and have more immediate impact than putting a chip in the MBP that will simply give "up to" 20% more battery life (mind you, Intel's figures are like Apple saying the MBP was "4 times faster" which it wasn't). The 64 bit goodness, again, just about nothing you could run on OS X, including Tiger itself, can do anything with it. Additionally Adobe's CS3, currently entering Beta from Alpha as I write this, is completely written for the Mac and Windoze addressing 32 bits so aside from the slight energy savings for Meron your experience will be pretty much the same with Yonah. Something to consider.

[~Shard~]

Additionally Adobe's CS3, currently entering Beta from Alpha as I write this, is completely written for the Mac and Windoze addressing 32 bits so aside from the slight energy savings for Meron your experience will be pretty much the same with Yonah. Something to consider.

And to add to this, CS3, which many people are waiting for because of the whole UB thing, will not be released until Q2 of 07, so it will be another year before we even see it. :cool:

[generik]

Why not just wait until Apple goes back to the PPC instead of wasting your money on POS x86 machines?

O'RELLY?

You mean like that 1.67Ghz PB that costs the same as a more modern MBP when it only has a processor that costs $74?!?

[^squirrel^]

I reckon i'll just wait until Sept. Let's hope they roll good old Merom out but then. If it's not going to happen until next year then sod it, i'll get the Yonah.

[DeVizardofOZ]

Anyone with an opinion?

Maybe Jobs& Co. uses the Merom for the 17" MBP... Another issue is the use of Yonah's in Win based laprops. There are already some who offer a faster version for their products.

The (Hardware) competition is not sleeping, except for Gates&Windows.

:D