Intel Quietly Ships 2.33 GHz Core Duo

[Glassman]

i see you old ppc farts getting excited really quick just becouse of some slight MHz update, heh

the fact is, whenever intel or AMD release higher clocked versions of the same CPU, it's due to increased yield in manufacturing process and the faster chip replaces the previous and is sold for the same price as the previous model, so that the whole speed range offered shifts a bit down and the slowest chip usually falls out.. what you saw on MacBook Pro lounch was precisely that - Apple decided upon chips they will use, for the price, but intel had better yield from the beginning so they changed the offering - faster chip for the same price.. and since Apple was already prepared to pay the original price for the originally announced models, they just used what intel gave them for that price.. it was the same story lately with the 1.83->2.0 update and although Meroms are around the corner, it could be again the same story with 2.33.. but it also might be that Apple is already fully stocked on Core Duo and that they're already preparing to roll out Core2 Duo..

btw. I heard that initially only Apple and Lenovo will be getting Merom in reasonable quantities, which makes me hope for Core2 Duo MacBook Pros announced and likely demonstrated at WWDC.. desktop versio Core2 Duos are being officially released by the end of july and there are very reasonable models with 40W TDP which will most likely end up in iMacs and maybe even Mac Minis.. we'll see

 

[thogs_cave]

Wow, your maths is horrid.

It's fortunate that your grammar is a good match.

(I just couldn't resist!)

 

[thogs_cave]

i wasn't even around at the time.

Egad, why do I feel old all of the sudden? <pulls shawl tight around shoulders>

 

[dontmatter]

Why would apple update? 2.33 is the new top of the line, everything else is now either not the top or futher from it than it used to be. As 2.33 comes in at the top, prices drop, and everybody else is going to update/drop prices, so if apple sits, they're computers look slow and expensive, and in fact, are. So apple has two options: lower prices, or update. Apple is about selling high end computers, so it is always in there interest to update rather than lower prices, because it keeps them from going to commodity zone where they don't fare so well, and there ain't any margins.

Why wouldn't apple update? It's not their style. Frequent updates make big announcments hard to pull off, and so people don't have reason to get excited about macs, but start to view them like PC users view PCs (and there go margins). People buying a mac usually know they're buying a mac beforehand, rather than a dell customer who might buy a HP if it's a better deal. So apple isn't as worried about being competitive, and if they can get away with not updating, it's free money for them as the processor gets cheaper. Doing this means they don't have to be uber-efficient like Dell, and can still be relatively competitive when they announce a new computer, because they'll get more profits out at the end of the product lifecycle, and then get to fix the whining and unhappy customers and make them love apple again with a big fancy update.

So quick, do some rough math. If they lose 3% of mbp sales by not updating, but save about 100 bucks per $3000 unit on chips, it looks like they gain 3, loose 3, end up about dead even. But wait, that's for revenue. Look at profits- say they've got pretty fat margins (for easy calculation) of $1000 per unit. Boom, 100 bucks in the chip is a 10% increase in profits. Combine that with a 3% decrease in units, and you've still got more than a 9% increase in profits overall.

So what's apple after? Unit sales, market share, the great demonic microsoft? They give updates. Profits? They pretend nothing happened, we grumble, and they keep making dough.

 

[matticus008]

It's fortunate that your grammar is a good match.

(I just couldn't resist!)

His grammar is perfectly fine if he speaks Commonwealth English.

 

[Evangelion]

I see every reason for it

I see no reason for it. I bet that MBP (and iMac, maybe others as well) are going to be upgraded to Merom in August.

 

[truz]

Here's something Apple users aren't used to....

We are used to chipset upgrades once a year and only ususaly 50-200 mhz max. Now it seems like Intel is ripping these things out almost too fast. I think Apple should sit on upgrading any of the line until there is another upgrade.

The pro lines have taken a beating because of IBM and their snail mail approach. If Apple could do a 6-9 month cycle similar to what the iBooks used to be but on all their lines, I think you will see some serious improvement in Apple's image.

Apple has to keep up with the latest in there systems or the PC's will beat them as Dell runs the same intel chips.

I don't see any problem with apple upgrading to the latest chips for there systems (drop the lowest chip.. ex: 1.83 to 2.0 when 2.1 came out and now 2.0 drop for 2.1 and 2.3 chip) This allows someone who is hunting the latest mac gain the latest chip as well.

I see alot of people on ebay buying macs and turn around and sell them for the new stuff and threw a few hundred down the drain.. WASTE! I have my imac intel 2.0 and I'm more then happy with it and don't plan on upgrading for a year or so.. I buy a new laptop and or desktop once a year and my current laptop is a hp (windows). I'm very interested in buying a macbook as I want the 13" screen, the down side is the video card so I was holding off for the macbook pro 13" (if they make one). As I'm always on the road for a week at a time and being away from my mac and on a windows laptop hurts I can't wait until I get home so I can move my mouse and awake my mac. Anyways.. I think I'll be buying a macbook shortly as I can't handle my windows laptop for checking my email and then having to run my virus scanner.. I'm just waiting to get a good deal on ebay as they been selling for around $800 used and shipped. I just can't seem to hold a bid at the last minute

 

[Evangelion]

With the shift going to Merom in the MBP and iMac,the Conroe in the upcoming MacPro and the Woody in the XServe I can see the Mini getting bumped up in the next couple of weeks.

Putting Conroe in Mac Pro would be a disaster, IMO. Dell would be offering true dual-dual workstations, whereas Apple would be stuck at single dual-core. What Apple should do is this:

All Mac Pro's would be dual-dual's from top to bottom. And that means using Woodcrest. True, this might mean that prices might increase. And they could increase the baseline price of MacPro to $2499 (currently $1999) for example. specs would start from dual-dual 2GHz Woodcrest, through 2.33Ghz dual-dual to 3Ghz dual-dual (the hi-end model seems to always be significantly better then the rest. For example, original G5 PowerMac had 1.6Ghz G5, 1.8Ghz G5 and 2x 2GHz G5)

Now, a change like that means that there's room for additional machine in Apple's lineup. I mean, consumer-segment has two desktops (iMac and Mac Mini), there could be two professional desktops as well. Those new desktops would be using dual-core Conroes. Prices would be (for example) $1499 and $1999. Specs of the two machines would be 2.4GHz Conroe and 2.67GHz Conroe.

Besides CPU's, what other differences would there be between Mac Pro and Mac? Mac Pro would support SLI (two 16x PCI-E slots), whereas Mac would not (just one 16x PCI-E slot). Mac Pro would have room for four HD's, whereas the Mac would have just two. And the Mac Pro would have more PCI-E slots than the Mac would have.

And before you ask: "Dude! Why should I buy a dual-core Mac for $1999, when I could just get a dual-dual Mac Pro for $500 more?". Well, Apple would just LOVE to see you get the Pro instead . They do that with iPod even today. But seriously. the 2.67GHz Conroe would outrun the 2Ghz dual-dual Woodcrest in some situations (games for example, they are not multithreaded). And that hi-end Conroe-Mac might have better vid-card by default than the low-end Woodcrest Pro would have.

As to iMac... It would get Merom in it and upgraded graphics. But Conroe-Mac would still be faster, and it would have the benefit of being expandable. And the iMac would have the benefit (or drawback, depending on your viewpoint) of the screen and all-in-one design. So they would not be direct alternatives to each other.

Am I making any sense here?

 

[bloodycape]

You want big numbers, go out, pick yourself up a Pentium D 805, same architecture as the old Pentium Extreme Editions. Buy a decent motherboard, probably ASUS as their OC utils are light years ahead. Find a reasonably priced phase-change cooling system. There. You've got a dual core, 64-bit system running at 3.8-4 GHz on the Cheap for about 400 bucks if you don't throw in a buffalo testicles GPU.

Wait I thought those chips were 32bit? I rather use abit and an AMD 64but chip but that another thing.

 

[Evangelion]

also isnt 2.3 ghz just as fast as the fastest merom?

I'm surprised that I have to tell a Mac-user this, but.... There's more to performance than clock-speed . Merom is about 20% faster, clock for clock than Yonah is. And Merom has twice as much L2-cache (on faster models) than Yonah has. Also, Merom is a 64bit CPU, which also gives it a nice boost in performance.

 

[Evangelion]

why is that?

The question was: Why can't Apple sell the iSight in Europe. Answer: it has too much lead and/or other other toxic chemicals/metals in it, so it doesn't pass the new environmental-directive. Same thing happened to the Airport Extreme base-station.

 

[kumbaya]

Putting Conroe in Mac Pro would be a disaster, IMO. Dell would be offering true dual-dual workstations, whereas Apple would be stuck at single dual-core. What Apple should do is this:

All Mac Pro's would be dual-dual's from top to bottom. And that means using Woodcrest. True, this might mean that prices might increase. And they could increase the baseline price of MacPro to $2499 (currently $1999) for example. specs would start from dual-dual 2GHz Woodcrest, through 2.33Ghz dual-dual to 3Ghz dual-dual (the hi-end model seems to always be significantly better then the rest. For example, original G5 PowerMac had 1.6Ghz G5, 1.8Ghz G5 and 2x 2GHz G5)

Now, a change like that means that there's room for additional machine in Apple's lineup. I mean, consumer-segment has two desktops (iMac and Mac Mini), there could be two professional desktops as well. Those new desktops would be using dual-core Conroes. Prices would be (for example) $1499 and $1999. Specs of the two machines would be 2.4GHz Conroe and 2.67GHz Conroe.

Besides CPU's, what other differences would there be between Mac Pro and Mac? Mac Pro would support SLI (two 16x PCI-E slots), whereas Mac would not (just one 16x PCI-E slot). Mac Pro would have room for four HD's, whereas the Mac would have just two. And the Mac Pro would have more PCI-E slots than the Mac would have.

And before you ask: "Dude! Why should I buy a dual-core Mac for $1999, when I could just get a dual-dual Mac Pro for $500 more?". Well, Apple would just LOVE to see you get the Pro instead . They do that with iPod even today. But seriously. the 2.67GHz Conroe would outrun the 2Ghz dual-dual Woodcrest in some situations (games for example, they are not multithreaded). And that hi-end Conroe-Mac might have better vid-card by default than the low-end Woodcrest Pro would have.

As to iMac... It would get Merom in it and upgraded graphics. But Conroe-Mac would still be faster, and it would have the benefit of being expandable. And the iMac would have the benefit (or drawback, depending on your viewpoint) of the screen and all-in-one design. So they would not be direct alternatives to each other.

Am I making any sense here?

Yes.

One interesting question is what, if anything, will Apple do with the cheapest variants of Intel chips, and the ultra low-power variants?

I would love ultraportable MacBook Mini or even iTablet

What's unclear is Apple's strategy going forwards in the cheap desktop space: MacPro Mini??!!

 

[Evangelion]

Intel's pretty close to a charity these days. AMD has them scared and they're nearly giving away many of their processors to stop the market share loss.

They are "giving away" NetBurst (Pentium 4) based CPU's, not Core-CPU's. reason being that P4 is crap, whereas Core is not .

 

[sam10685]

Egad, why do I feel old all of the sudden? <pulls shawl tight around shoulders>

don't worry... it's cool dude.

 

[SiriusExcelsior]

Putting Conroe in Mac Pro would be a disaster, IMO.
[snip]
All Mac Pro's would be dual-dual's from top to bottom.
[snip]
Now, a change like that means that there's room for additional machine in Apple's lineup. I mean, consumer-segment has two desktops (iMac and Mac Mini), there could be two professional desktops as well.
[snip]
Besides CPU's, what other differences would there be between Mac Pro and Mac?
[snip]
As to iMac... It would get Merom in it and upgraded graphics. But Conroe-Mac would still be faster, and it would have the benefit of being expandable. And the iMac would have the benefit (or drawback, depending on your viewpoint) of the screen and all-in-one design. So they would not be direct alternatives to each other.

Am I making any sense here?

I see where you're going with this, but remember one of the things Jobs did after he came back to Apple back in '97. He killed off the grand multitude of Quadrii, Performae, Centrises, LCs, PowerBooks and PowerMacs (lovely plurals there) because he said it confused consumers or something like that. He replaced it with the iMac, iBook, PowerMac and PowerBook.

I'm not saying Apple is still like that (just look at the product line now.. 3 consumer lines, 2 professionals, 3 iPods and heck knows how many types of accessories from remotes to socks), but something tells me Apple doesn't want to drop down to the likeness of the PC world again, with a Series name and series numbers (LC 630, for example), each just that tiniest different from other models. Although now we still say things like iMac G4 900...

Who knows, maybe Jobs decided inventory is easier controlled by individual configs rather than BTO offers.

Now i'm just blabbering..

 

[dextertangocci]

Was this a typo? It is actually a 167MHz increase (7.7%) over the T2600 and a 333MHz increase (16.7%) over the T2500.

Huh?

I just went 2.33 - 2.16 = 00.17 * 2 = 00.34

 

[psycho bob]

Huh?

I just went 2.33 - 2.16 = 00.17 * 2 = 00.34

Unfortunately you put 34MHz when it should be .34GHz or 340MHz

 

[jesaja]

Huh?

I just went 2.33 - 2.16 = 00.17 * 2 = 00.34

Then it would still be 340 Mhz, not 34...

Jojo

 

[erlendscott]

His grammar is perfectly fine if he speaks Commonwealth English.

You mean regular English, not the 'American English' that most people on these boards speak!

 

[AidenShaw]

the Yonah is the only current 32-bit x86 chip

Wait I thought those chips were 32bit? I rather use abit and an AMD 64but chip but that another thing.

All of the current Intel desktop and server chips (even the Celerons) are 64-bit, and have been for about a year or so. The Intel developer porting machines that Apple introduced at last year's WWDC were 64-bit Pentium 4s.

Only the Yonah laptop chips are 32-bit only.

 

[AidenShaw]

BS rumour - Apple are not special

btw. I heard that initially only Apple and Lenovo will be getting Merom in reasonable quantities

That's not going to happen - Intel is not going to stiff HP and Dell and all the others.

It's unlikely that there will be much of a supply problem (Merom is built on a proven 65nm process), and even if there is Intel wouldn't "favor" one or two vendors. That would be the quickest way to increase the number of AMD laptops - something that Intel would not want.

...which makes me hope for Core2 Duo MacBook Pros announced and likely demonstrated at WWDC.. desktop versio Core2 Duos are being officially released by the end of july and there are very reasonable models with 40W TDP which will most likely end up in iMacs and maybe even Mac Minis.. we'll see

Why would Apple kill off MacBook Pro and MacBook Amateur sales by showing a much better laptop that they couldn't sell?

Conroe (the desktop Core 2) is said to have a TDP of 65 watts, where did you see 40 watts for a Conroe?

 

[Evangelion]

I see where you're going with this, but remember one of the things Jobs did after he came back to Apple back in '97. He killed off the grand multitude of Quadrii, Performae, Centrises, LCs, PowerBooks and PowerMacs (lovely plurals there) because he said it confused consumers or something like that. He replaced it with the iMac, iBook, PowerMac and PowerBook.

true, he simplified the lineup to just four: Consumer laptop and desktop, and professional laptop and desktop. For pro's we have PowerMac and MacBook Pro. For consumers we have iMac and MacBook. Question is: where does that leave Mac Mini? It's a consumer desktop for sure, but we already have iMac occupying that slot.

Apple has expanded their lineup in the past if they feel the need to do so. They could do so in this case just fine as well. And if/when PowerMac starts to really move up (dual-dual for example), there will be a wide opening in Apple's lineup Some people will want an expandable machine. Today they could get the low-end PowerMac, but if Apple moves to dual-dual (like they should, we ARE talking about workstation here), those would get too expensive. iMac would be right pricewise, but it lacks the feature-set they need. So there is a need for cheaper but expandable machine.

 

[Evangelion]

That's not going to happen - Intel is not going to stiff HP and Dell and all the others.

Apparently Dell just signed a deal with AMD where AMD will supply Dell with "millions" of mobile-CPU's....

It's unlikely that there will be much of a supply problem (Merom is built on a proven 65nm process), and even if there is Intel wouldn't "favor" one or two vendors. That would be the quickest way to increase the number of AMD laptops - something that Intel would not want.

Well, it's supply and demand. Intel will sell as many CPU's as possible. AMD will do the same. If Intel can't satisfy the demand, AMD will benefit. Intel COULD satisfy the demand by favouring few companies.

It doesn't really matter to Intel that does Apple alone (for example) consume their entire Merom-supply, or that does it take Apple, Dell, Lenovo and HP to do so. Intel would still sell the same number of CPU's.

Likewise, Apple and Lenovo could get first dibs on the new CPU, but that does not mean that Dell and the like are left without. If vendors can't get enough Meroms (due to strong demand for the CPU or due to Intel favouring some specific companies), they would use other CPU's instead.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apparently Dell just signed a deal with AMD where AMD will supply Dell with "millions" of mobile-CPU's...

Can you provide any links to back up that "apparently"? A Yahoo! search finds nothing about it....

Apparently, it's just an unfounded rumour.

Well, it's supply and demand. Intel will sell as many CPU's as possible.

True, except for the fact that Intel can very quickly ramp up to satisfy any level of demand. That kind of distorts any "supply and demand" model.

Intel wants marketshare - seen any of the stories about the "crisis" that Intel only has 80% of the server chip market?

 

[Evangelion]

Can you provide any links to back up that "apparently"? A Yahoo! search finds nothing about it....

Apparently, it's just an unfounded rumour.

Link. Not actually reported on Reuters yet, but still

True, except for the fact that Intel can very quickly ramp up to satisfy any level of demand. That kind of distorts any "supply and demand" model.

Well, Intel does not have infinite supply. And I believe that most of their production is going to be NetBurst for quite some time.

Intel wants marketshare - seen any of the stories about the "crisis" that Intel only has 80% of the server chip market?

Considering that few years ago they had practically 100% market-share in x86-servers, it IS a crisis. Intel has lost market-share at a trendemous pace to AMD. Hell, in 4+P servers AMD's market-share is about 50%! Few years ago that was unheard of!