Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) Performance

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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Do we have benchmarks for Conroe vs. G5 yet? I haven't seen any but I would think that a 2.33ghz chip with more advanced architecture would out-perform a 2.0ghz chip with "old" architecture by enough to justify at least keeping the same price point.
 
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!!!
Click to expand...


I like Anandtech, they are very fair to all sides and give the facts.
 
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.
Click to expand...

If it were up to me, I would make the product line look like this before November (I doubt Apple would make a Mini-Tower, but think it would be great):

Mac Mini (Combo) - $549/£399
Core 2 Duo T5500 (Merom) -> 1.66GHz, 2MB, 667MHz FSB
GMA X3000

Mac Mini (SuperDrive) - $749/£499
Core 2 Duo T5600 (Merom) -> 1.83GHz, 2MB, 667MHz FSB
GMA X3000

Mac Plus (Mini-Tower) - $1,049/£699 + iMac 17" - $1,299/£849
Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe/Allendale) -> 2.13GHz, 2MB, 1066MHz FSB
Radeon X1600 Pro (128MB)

Mac Plus (Mini-Tower) - $1,299/£849 + iMac 20" - $1,699/£1,099
Core 2 Duo E6600 (Conroe) -> 2.4GHz, 4MB, 1066MHz FSB
Radeon X1600 XT (256MB)

Mac Pro - $2,699/£1,999
Dual Xeon 5150s (Woodcrest) -> 2.66GHz, 4MB, 1333MHz FSB
Radeon X1900 GT (256MB)

Mac Pro - $3,699/£2,699
Dual Xeon 5160s (Woodcrest) -> 3GHz, 4MB, 1333MHz FSB
Radeon X1900 XT (512MB)
 
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:
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.
Click to expand...


hmm, so it looks like the core duo is roughly similar to the athlon 64 x2 2.0Ghz.

Soo... the 2.16 Yonah is around 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo speed. Kind of figures, considering Merom is supposed to come in ~30% faster.

Not that great, but not that bad either.
 
macidiot said:
I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...
Click to expand...
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).
 

Attachments

  • conroe.jpg
    conroe.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 95
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.
Click to expand...
That's where I gauged it as well. The 1.86 GHz Conroe beats AMD's FX-62 in a few tests.

Hell the E6400 (2.13 GHz, $224) and the E6500 (2.4 GHz, $316) are more then enough to compete with the FX-62 (2.8 GHz, $999)
 
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.
Click to expand...


AMD 64 , Core 1 , G5 all perform similar , Core 2 on the other hand is a different beast with a 20% boost clock per clock. so a good measure of performance would be to take a clock seed number then add 20% to get the equalivilancy performance. For the 2MB C2D's we can lower figure this to say
14%. Based on what i see on Anandtech.

Example :

Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86ghz + 14% = 2.12ghz G5/X2/CD

Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4ghz + 20% = 2.88ghz G5/X2/CD

Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz + 20% = 3.51ghz G5/X2/CD

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.
 
Eidorian said:
Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.
Click to expand...

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?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Eidorian said:
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
Click to expand...


other than the extreme edition (which i don't suggest should go in an iMac) i doubt its any more than the G5 that was in there before....
 
QCassidy352 said:
So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.
Click to expand...

AMD may not be dead, but the reason for their all out, full court press on the legal front is becoming more apparent. It now appears to be a desperation move.

If all they can do is lower prices and maybe release an FX-64 variant before 2007, they might as well be dead in the water. (link: http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/articles/view.php?id=1980&cid=2&pg=13 ** Second Paragraph). I just don't have that good vibe from AMD anymore. I know that doesn't mean a crap to anyone, but It seems like Intel has made a huge leap and are not looking back.

I have not owned an Intel processor based machine since the 90's. (Man I loved Cyrix DX4/100: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cyrix_486_DX4_100_Front.jpg). I can see myself joining the ranks of Intel owners very shortly.


edit: Cyrix Link
 
Cnet net already has a 2 reviews and a one video for this chip on two different pcs. One is Dell the other is Falcon Northwest.

The dell review and video here.
 
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.
Click to expand...

1st of all I said Apple not IBM or AMD. AMD is going to get a through ass kicking for the next 12-18 months till K8L comes out. The Turion X2 is a flop(that's also 6 months late) It's so bad for AMD that they are practically having a fire sale on X2/A64's come the 24th. Let's not even go there with IBM they are too busy making toy CPU's for M$ , and talk about the nightmare IBM/Sony are having with the Cell yields(what are they like 20-30%).lol:D
 
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!
 
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!
Click to expand...

You can't, unless you wait for the Merom version later next month which will be more expensive. Conroe (Core 2 duo that is out now) uses a different socket from Yonah. Merom is the pin-compatible one.
 
Memory limitations

Whether IMac takes Merom or Conroe, it's still 64 bit. Does anybody have any feeling whether the IMac will be able to handle > 2GB of memory (assuming 2GB dimms are for sale)? That would make me very happy :)

Thanks,
Steve
 
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.
Click to expand...


Try 4Ghz...Anandtech in their review overclocked their X6800 to a stable 4Ghz. :eek:
 
Eidorian said:
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
Click to expand...

Is it more than a G5? I see someone posted PowerMac processor power consumption, but those were dual processors in a PowerMac. I want to see how much power the single G5 in an iMac consumed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back