Intel Core 2 Duo Chips Announced

[Cowinacape]

How about a new Mac at WWDC?

Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz – FSB1066 – 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999

Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz – FSB1066 – 4 MB cache – (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+​

You da man Dan I'd definetly hit one of your super sized macminis. Now if Apple was to fit those specs in a regular iMac, would make for a great little machine.

 

[Willis]

It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."



The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.

true.... didnt the Macbook outrun a G5 in final cut studio or something?

 

[shawnce]

Still, they are the successors to conroe and woodcrest. As long as they are socket compatible, they're the next generation for these machines, whether you consider them a new chip or not.

They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.

 

[Willis]

Roz Ho? said at Macworld SF that Microsoft BU was commiting at least 5 more years of mac software.

they say they like the platform... go figure.

ADD: just a thought aswell. Wonder if we may see the next Office at WWDC?

 

[SPUY767]

It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."



The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.

I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.

 

[Dan==]

But its like ATI simply naming one of their chips ATI Radeon with no additional naming (being something like X1800 etc.). Why not something like Mac Plus, Mac Extra, Mac Express... I could go on.

Those are all fine.

Well, the Mac Plus is pretty slow these days. What was that - 8Mhz?

Too bad the Mac Mini wasn't named the Mac Nano. Then we could have named this one the Mac Mini.

 

[milo]

They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.

I never said otherwise. My point is they are the follow-ups to conroe and woodcrest and will use the same sockets as those two. Which means they can be swapped in, which I believe was the original question.

 

[milo]

I'm sorry. I thought that it was adequately implied that I meant the fastest chip, to date. Anyway, that's what I meant if I've been misunderstood.

I wasn't disagreeing with the "to date" part, just with the notion that a higher clock speed is the same as a faster chip.

The 2.7 G5 will continue to be the highest clocked chip in a mac to date. But chips with lower clock speeds will likely prove to be faster in benchmarks, meaning it's not the fastest chip.

 

[shawnce]

I never said otherwise.

You did say "successors" and "next generation" which I was pointing out they are not

 

[shadowfax]

Well it's back to the future for all of us. Remember when the Mac was going 64-bit with the introduction of the G5 PowerMac on June 23, 2003? Only more thanthree years later and we're doing it all over again thanks to Yonah's 7 month retrograde.

This may be a bit of a disappointment, but I think that Merom is still in the "past:" merom is not a 64-bit chip. None of these Core 2's are. They just have EM64T, which allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory directly. These are not true 64-bit processors like the G5--that is, the Core 2 Duo won't work with 64-bit applications. The G5's Intel counterpart would, I think, bit the Itanium chip, based on intel's IA-64 Architecture, which is truly 64 bit in every way. Merom simply contains a 64-bit extension to the IA-32 (x86) architecture, which I understand is still a 32-bit architecture. We're not out of the woods yet...

 

[shawnce]

This may be a bit of a disappointment, but I think that Merom is still in the "past:" merom is not a 64-bit chip. None of these Core 2's are. They just have EM64T, which allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory directly. These are not true 64-bit processors like the G5--that is, the Core 2 Duo won't work with 64-bit applications.

You are incorrect. The Core 2 family of processors are 64 bit processors.... they support 64 bit integer math, they support load/store using 64 bit virtual addresses (also at least 40 bit of physical), sport 64 bit wide register file, they support the larger register set enabled by EM64T, etc.

They are 64 bit just like the G5 (PPC 970/FX/MP) is 64 bit (granted 64 bit support on PowerPC chips is a little more transparent).

The Itanium is a completely different type of ISA of which 64 bit support is only one feature.

 

[milo]

You did say "successors" and "next generation" which I was pointing out they are not

It seems like you're just quibbling over semantics. Webster defines "successor" as "one that follows" which is exactly what the quad core chips will be doing (and "next gen" seems to imply the same thing). Kentsfield and cloverton follow conroe and woodcrest, and use the same sockets respectively. People will upgrade, and top of the line computers for sale will switch to the new chips.

You don't seem to be disagreeing as much as quibbling with my word choice. What would you suggest as an alternative to "succcessor" to describe these future chips?

 

[Multimedia]

MBP Past September?

Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249

Also, since Apple is now kind of competeing with PCs who get the newest and fastest, it would be in Apple's best interest to get these chips in MBPs asap. Also, it is easy to see that a lot of people are waiting to purchase a new Apple laptop with this technology. MBP's current sales are going to slump from here on out until this technology is put into some new computers.

Wow. Apple is going to abandon soldering the processor directly to the printed circuit board (PCB) and add a socket to the MBP PCB? If so they must redesign the case as well since it will have to be thicker. I do want a layout redesign so the HDs can be easily swapped out like they can in the MB. And why wouldn't Apple know this long ago and be ready with the next version? Waiting past September seems too long for the refresh.

 

[shawnce]

What would you suggest as an alternative to "successor" to describe these future chips?

The normally accepted definition of successor is one who replaces the one that came before it (as in succession).

The normally accepted definition of "next generation" in this field implies a new architecture (aka Core 2 to Core 3, or G4 to G5).

Kentfield and Clovertown are simply a different packaging of the Conroe and Woodcrest... putting multiple Conroe or Woodcrest chips into a multiple-chip module (MCM).

Not trying to quibble just make sure folks don't read things incorrectly.

 

[Dan==]

Very nice, indeed... (of course, i expect that Apple release something much more beautiful than waht you did )

Thanks, and yes, me too. I just hope they do something to fill that headless hole between the mini and pro. And I hope the innards are more accessible than the mini.

 

[boncellis]

Dan=='s mockup is something that I had considered before, I remember talking about it with Yvan 256 at some point as something like "the return of the Cube." I think it's a pretty good design, the guts of the Mini are so packed as it is, an expanded case would allow for a substantial upgrade in components, including the oft clamored for dedicated GPU.

Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==?

 

[eeboarder]

This may be a bit of a disappointment, but I think that Merom is still in the "past:" merom is not a 64-bit chip. None of these Core 2's are. They just have EM64T, which allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory directly. These are not true 64-bit processors like the G5--that is, the Core 2 Duo won't work with 64-bit applications. The G5's Intel counterpart would, I think, bit the Itanium chip, based on intel's IA-64 Architecture, which is truly 64 bit in every way. Merom simply contains a 64-bit extension to the IA-32 (x86) architecture, which I understand is still a 32-bit architecture. We're not out of the woods yet...

Wow. I've very interested. Any sources? I was really looking forward to using 64-bit apps and possibly a stable os with the new meroms.

 

[Dan==]

Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==?

I could take a stab to make a Mini double-wide . (Perhaps not til the weekend tho to make it pretty.)

It would work well in home entertainment setups, but not so much on the desktop, I think. I'd expect a deeper, rather than wider, chassis would be preferred.

-Dan

 

[boncellis]

I could take a stab to make a Mini double-wide . (Perhaps not til the weekend tho to make it pretty.)

It would work well in home entertainment setups, but not so much on the desktop, I think. I'd expect a deeper, rather than wider, chassis would be preferred.

-Dan

That's exactly what I was thinking, it would fit in with other home audio/video components--or in my case, replace them. I've played around with it, but I obviously don't have the skills that you do.

One thing that crossed my mind the other day is back in the days of my 486, I remember reading about Digital's alpha 64 bit processor and some software that was available to take advantage of the 64 bit architecture. One of the applications was MS Word, which makes me wonder--how long will it be before basic 3P applications like Office take advantage of 64 bit processors?

 

[Dan==]

Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==?

[...]

That's exactly what I was thinking, it would fit in with other home audio/video components--or in my case, replace them. I've played around with it, but I obviously don't have the skills that you do.

Ok, here goes. (Quick pass)

Eeek. Not so sure I like that.

Hmmm... maybe with just one slot?

A little better. I personally prefer the taller narrower one, though.

 

[gnasher729]

This is a positively thoughtless remark. No one's cheering the MHz myth on, in fact, Intel itself has abandoned the concept. Until the 3Ghz woodies get dropped in a MacPro, the 2.7 GHZ G5 will still be the fastest chip ever put in a Macintosh.

Assuming that you are talking about clock speed, there have been Macs running at over 3 GHz, just not for sale to the public. The Intel machines that were shipped to developers after WWDC 2005 had 3.4 GHz Pentium IVs.

 

[WildPalms]

Yay! Chips that don't suck and are fast! (I hate P4s)

Ironic, isnt it? Core Duo's are based on Pentium 3 architecture.

Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.

Get a golden cats eye and who cares about the rest!

 

[gnasher729]

but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle

I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?

With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.

Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.

And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.

 

[milozauckerman]

looking at reference systems - for $2049, Gateway's Core 2 Duo gets the 2.4GHz/4MB L2 cache Conroe, 2GB of RAM from the factory, an x1900 512MB graphics card, 320GB hard drive, card reader and DL DVD burner.

Apple had better step its game up compared to the prices/specs rumored last week. A weak graphics card and 512MB of RAM aren't going to cut it in the low tower, even if it does have XEON INSIDE or whatever the marketing pitch will be to distract us.

EDIT: Dell would be even cheaper, with a lesser video card, but there doesn't seem to be a way to separate the XPS 410 from the included 20in monitor as of now.

 

[MrCrowbar]

Ok, here goes. (Quick pass)

Eeek. Not so sure I like that.

Hmmm... maybe with just one slot?

A little better. I personally prefer the taller narrower one, though.

Actually I like the one with 2 slots. Perfect for all those people wanting 2 drives.