Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.QCassidy352 said:You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?
Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.QCassidy352 said:You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?
QCassidy352 said:You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?
alexdrinan said:After looking at a chart of all the Core 2 Duo's, it seems like the most reasonable implementation would be to but the 2MB L2 cache Allendale cores into the iMacs (1.86ghz for the 17" and 2.16ghz for the 20") and the 4MB L2cache Conroe cores into the 3 Mac Pros (2.33ghz @ $1999, 2.66ghz @ $2499, and 2.93ghz @ $2999), with possibly and ultra-high end Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest offering @ $3499 (I don't think economy of scale effects that likleyhood as Apple will already be purchasing them for their entire X-Serve line).
That's probably how I would roll it out if it were up to me.
andiwm2003 said:while i agree with you general lineup i don't think the imac goes below 2ghz for marketing reasons.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.
but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.
in a few weeks we will know.
ShnikeJSB said:Does a 1333MHz bus matter?
Not only is the Anandtech Article one of the better ones, they simulated a 1333 bus speed with the X6800-EE processer, and came up with an overall inprovement of 2.4%, with DivX 6.1 providing a 7.5% boost!
Also, to quote the article:
"If Apple does indeed use a 1333MHz Woodcrest for its new line of Intel based Macs, running Windows it may be the first time that an Apple system will be faster out of the box than an equivalently configured, non-overclocked PC. There's an interesting marketing angle."
WOOHOO!!!
alexdrinan said:After looking at a chart of all the Core 2 Duo's, it seems like the most reasonable implementation would be to but the 2MB L2 cache Allendale cores into the iMacs (1.86ghz for the 17" and 2.16ghz for the 20") and the 4MB L2cache Conroe cores into the 3 Mac Pros (2.33ghz @ $1999, 2.66ghz @ $2499, and 2.93ghz @ $2999), with possibly and ultra-high end Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest offering @ $3499 (I don't think economy of scale effects that likleyhood as Apple will already be purchasing them for their entire X-Serve line).
That's probably how I would roll it out if it were up to me.
I will be obsolete. Merom is next month.amols said:Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.
ksz said:Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech are really good. I luv this statement:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1macidiot said:I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...
Eidorian said:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
As Eidorian's link points out, Core Duo (Yonah) performance falls somewhere between the Athlon X2 3800 and the Athlon X2 4200. The 2.40GHz E6600, 2.66GHz E6700, and 2.93GHz X6800 Core 2 Duos in particular are at least 40% faster, which is exactly what Intel promised at the IDF (although they were comparing it against the Pentium D).macidiot said:I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...
That's where I gauged it as well. The 1.86 GHz Conroe beats AMD's FX-62 in a few tests.ksz said:As Eidorian's link points out, Core Duo (Yonah) performance falls somewhere between the Athlon X2 3800 and the Athlon X2 4200. The 2.40GHz E6600, 2.66GHz E6700, and 2.93GHz X6800 Core 2 Duos in particular are at least 40% faster, which is exactly what Intel promised at the IDF.
Eidorian said:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
Eidorian said:Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.
jiggie2g said:Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.
amols said:Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.
Eidorian said:Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
QCassidy352 said:So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.
QCassidy352 said:the original quote was to "G5/PPC fanboys," not "970MP fanboys." But whatever. My point is that it's hardly surprising that a bleeding edge chip beats an old one. That's kinda the point of technological progress, no?
So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.
Believe it or not, the fact that intel is releasing new chips does not mean that the other companies have given up or that intel has "won." IBM's desktop and server chips have been and will continue to be very competitive. Apple switched because PPC was not cutting it for laptops.
mlrproducts said:Wow, that seems pretty darn reasonable.
I was considering putting a 2.16 Core Duo in my currently Core Solo Mac mini. But now I'd much rather put the 1.83 Core 2 Duo in there for less than $200!
jdechko said:Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.
Eidorian said:Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?