Intel Demos 45nm Penryn Processors, Due by end of 2007

[Eidorian]

OK, I accept the change of topic. Apple was not first.


But then, neither did Apple.

Even so, there were verified reports of Yonah machines in the hands of other computer companies' customers before any reports of Apple customer shipments. (I'm separating machines sent to reviewers from machines delivered by FedEx to regular consumers.)

All I'm arguing is that your claim

Originally Posted by Eidorian
Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.​

is simply wrong. Unless, of course, you realize that the timeline is compressed to the point where "one of the first" and "one of the last" are both accurate descriptions.

They were definitely late in announcing, and while in the general ballpark within a week or two of other companies, they weren't the first to ship.

It's like the recordable DVD introduction. Many Apple fanbois "know" that Apple was first with recordable DVD drives as BTO.

Of course, they don't check their facts - otherwise they'd realize that Compaq announced systems with the same Pioneer drive a week or so before The Lord God Jobs walked onstage at Moscone.

iMac Core Duo shipped AT Macworld 2006. The MacBook Pro was delayed.

I don't need to listen to you about being a fanboy. Being such that I'm not. I'm that weak to fall for the RDF.

 

[3282872]

Greeeeattt (insert sarcasm where applicable)

Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity...

 

[Chef Medeski]

Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity...

That would be nice. I guess the most plausible corollary to this would be better battery lifes on laptops, but since desktops dont use battery, energy efficiency isnt of major concern. I think if instead of getting enviro friendly materials, people just upgraded less; you would already be doing a huge step towards helping the world. But its definetly two step.

Good prinicple to uphold, hard one to implement beyonds your own hands (still hard to implement in your own too)

 

[Swarmlord]

Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances.<snip>QUOTE]

I wouldn't call it obsolete. Big difference between not having the flagship model any more and having something that's obsolete.

Although I understand your sentiments, technology will always advance and when advanced technology is available those companies that want to survive will take advantage of it.

 

[Erasmus]

Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity...

OK, I wrote a long piece with which to flame you, and then my computer froze. I then started to write in point form so as to be faster, and my computer froze again. Therefore I will make this exceedingly quick, so as my computer does not freeze a third time when I'm in mid flame.

Third time lucky.

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. That's putting it lightly. Computers are not overly dangerous to the environment, and four cores will certainly not always be sufficient, even to the average consumer, and even within 1-2 years.

And I'll stop now before my computer dies. Maybe it's the heat? I'd be happy to elaborate later.

So unless that sarcasm applies to the whole post, Just No.

 

[3282872]

OK, I wrote a long piece with which to flame you, and then my computer froze. I then started to write in point form so as to be faster, and my computer froze again. Therefore I will make this exceedingly quick, so as my computer does not freeze a third time when I'm in mid flame.

Third time lucky.

I disagree with pretty much everything you say here. That's putting it lightly. Computers are not overly dangerous to the environment, and four cores will certainly not always be sufficient, even to the average consumer, and even within 1-2 years.

And I'll stop now before my computer dies. Maybe it's the heat? I'd be happy to elaborate later.

So unless that sarcasm applies to the whole post, Just No.

Why do you disagree? You seem extremely upset, care to elaborate?

 

[Erasmus]

Why do you disagree? You seem extremely upset, care to elaborate?

Aw darnit! Now you're all nice and all, and I can't bring myself to flame you!

To say people don't need more than 4 cores is short sighted. Playing music while importing music in iTunes brings my computer to its knees. True, it's 6 years old, but what will we want our computers to do in another 6 years?
There are some processes that cannot get enough cores, such as raytracing (Bryce 5... it's free) or video processing (iMovie HD's effects (I am only assuming iMovie can use any number of cores, it probably can't, but I'm sure you see that as each core can take on an extra frame, having twice as many cores should halve the time it takes to add a particularly demanding video effect))

And I disagree with your statement about computers being polluting. I may have mentioned something about computers not being soluble in my dissappeared posts, and may or may not have mentioned that you and the Earth should get a room...

I would be exceptionally surprised if anything other than cost and performance convinced CPU manufacturers to change the materials they use. I mean SiO2 lasted 40 years... And Silicon isn't going anywhere...

So yeah. Computers are killing the environment slower than a single person is just by living, and anyone can find a use for any amount of power. It's human nature.

 

[Evangelion]

Man, this whole "wait till '08" philosophy of mine is really paying off. I'll get a second revision Penryn/Santa Rosa MacBook with all the goodies.

Penryn is the second revision of Core 2 Duo so to speak. After Penryn we will get a whole new architecture, not a "new revision".

 

[devman]

Why is "choice" bad?

http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail252.html

 

[Evangelion]

http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail252.html

In return I could say: "One size does not fit all". Or do you think that Apple should eliminate all their computer-models, except iMac (or Mac Mini), since "Less is more"?

 

[Macinposh]

Computers are not overly dangerous to the environment, and four cores will certainly not always be sufficient, even to the average consumer, and even within 1-2 years.

Computers have been effecient enough for the "average user" last,what,5 years?

Average user reads emails once in a while,surfs few low demand websites,prints a recipe now and then,listens to a funny .mp3 song and plays a game of solitaire on sunday morning.Thats about it.

The young people in general are compeletely different breed,as are hobbyists and gamers.But they are not "average" users anymore,they are power users.

We (you? and me) people who work with the computers professionally,tend to look at things a bit too narrowmindedly,missing that the "average" peoples needs and habits are different.

And I'll stop now before my computer dies. Maybe it's the heat?

About the enviroment,uuh..never mind...

 

[Dash4814]

Now my new Mac Pro Quad 2.66 is already obselete. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer, but I'm tiring a bit from the constant change in technological advances. While it's fanastic that processors are quickly improving in size and performance, quite frankly the average desktop user, graphic designer or business individual does not need four or more processors. I would be more impressed with newer, more environmentally FRIENDLY materials that can do the work of present technology without filling up our landfills and polluting our rivers and oceans with endless wires, metals and (as in the isight camera) chemicals. Technological advancements, humanity's greed and "keeping up with the Jone's" consumerism is killing this planet and eventually, humanity...

I agree, which is why I use my computers until they're too obsolete to run new software.

Seriously, when I was a sophomore in high school I got a 1st gen "toilet seat" iBook (blue, of course) and used it until my third year of college, when Apple was releasing the newer versions of the OS and I needed better hardware to keep up. I bought a PowerMac G4 and have no plans to replace it until it has been rendered near-obsolete.

For your basic Joe C. Computeruser like me who uses it to type papers, surf the web, and mess with Adium and email you really can't beat the Mac's longevity.

Besides, I always saw replacing hardware every two years as a PC thing. One of the reasons I've only owned Apples is because they last so long.

 

[3282872]

and may or may not have mentioned that you and the Earth should get a room...

lol touché, but in all honesty, electronic waste is a serious environmental issue, always has been and always will be. Perhaps it is less harmful in quanity and pollution than the environmental waste generated by the average (American) person, but it still is waste that can and should be diminished. Excusing it by comparison to other waste isn't logical, but just an excuse.

Some links to some reading :

http://www.h-gac.com/NR/rdonlyres/e...zeltardwoeuqxrm7bksxxikujqs57xfxb/E-waste.pdf

http://www.eerl.org/

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57151,00.html

http://www.ewaste.ch/facts_and_figures/
"Did you know that the annual amount of e-waste generated from end-of-life electrical and electronic products (WEEE) is estimated to be a two digit amount, in million tons! And this is predicted to double in the coming decades."

... there are tons of articles online, just search "ewaste facts", "electronic evironmental pollution", etc.

 

[3282872]

Thanks

to everyone who responded to my comment. I was afraid I'd be blasted to kingdom come for making a remark on e-waste on a website dedicated to an electronics company...

 

[AidenShaw]

iMac Core Duo shipped AT Macworld 2006. The MacBook Pro was delayed.

OK, that's right.

The iMac has nothing that I look for in a computer, therefore I tend to ignore it.
_________________________

I suspect that Apple's penchant for secrecy helped them make early customer shipments.

While other manufacturers were using their small inital allocations of Yonahs to build machines for demos (CES2006, for example) and shows and reviewers - Apple was able to ship some to customers.

 

[Eidorian]

OK, that's right.

The iMac has nothing that I look for in a computer, therefore I tend to ignore it.
_________________________

I suspect that Apple's penchant for secrecy helped them make early customer shipments.

While other manufacturers were using their small inital allocations of Yonahs to build machines for demos (CES2006, for example) and shows and reviewers - Apple was able to ship some to customers.

That works out.

I do remember A LOT of demo Core Duo units. It was still sometime until they trickled out into the retail though. Apple had the iMac shipping a week after.

I'm also working on the Merom and Penryn articles more often now.

 

[SPUY767]

Well, hafnium is used in nuclear reactor control rods, so I think there will at least be competition for it. As to how much exists in the crust, it's about as common as uranium or tin (about 5 ppm). It's not easy to produce, since it's always bound with zirconium in nature, and requires a cascaded fractional crystallization process to purify.

Looks like someone went to wikipedia.

 

[SPUY767]

Sounds a little optimistic to me, LED screens should cost a fair bit more. But I agree, wait till leopard is out to buy. The bumps are rarely worth waiting for, though LED would be a big bump (yay low power) that would make sense- but that also means that you don't know that your wait will be fruitful.

LED Screens should cost LESS to manufacture, the average cost of brite white LEDs it in the 5-9 cent range in 100ish quantities, probably less the more you buy. That's for the 3mm units, 6 candelas each, I can't see them using anything larger than that for slimmness reasons. I'm speculating of course, as I do not know how this thing is going to be manufactured, but if It's anything like the design I tried to patent a number of years ago, and it may or may not be, my patent was designed, it will place a number of LED's around the perimeter of a light distribution material a la 3M's light pipes. The brightness of the display was controlled by reducing the number of LED's illuminated at any given time. Hard to explain, but it SHOULD be cheaper as it would be cheaper to manufacture.

 

[Erasmus]

About the enviroment,uuh..never mind...

Ack! The irony! Although I must suggest again that your standard person generates more heat just by living than your standard computer.

Computers have been effecient enough for the "average user" last,what,5 years?

Average user reads emails once in a while,surfs few low demand websites,prints a recipe now and then,listens to a funny .mp3 song and plays a game of solitaire on sunday morning.Thats about it.

The young people in general are compeletely different breed,as are hobbyists and gamers.But they are not "average" users anymore,they are power users.

We (you? and me) people who work with the computers professionally,tend to look at things a bit too narrowmindedly,missing that the "average" peoples needs and habits are different.

Although I understand where you are coming from, and agree with this to some extent, pretty much any computer built in the last 10 years would fulfil all these roles. But people don't buy 100 Mhz computers with 200 MB HDDs and 16 MB RAM. OSX Tiger/Leopard wouldn't run on it. Safari wouldn't run on it. iTunes wouldn't run on it. So unless you are willing to use 10 year old software running on OS 7, you need a reasonably new computer. It doesn't seem far fetched that in the near future even four or eight cores will fail to run modern software, or even the operating system of the day.

I would also like to point out that for about 3 years of those 5 you mentioned, it is at least my impression that CPU manufacture hit a mini dark age. In like three years, Pentium chips didn't really get much faster, and IBM's G4/G5 really just hovered at between 2-2.5 Ghz. Now of course, we have a doubling of cores every two years, and faster cores in between. So rather than computer performance bein roughly the same, as it was just a few years ago, it is now once again rapidly picking up speed exponentially, and software makers will use it. So your software that runs great on one core today will need four cores in a few years time.

P.S. I might also add that this argument is a bit pointless, because Mac Minis and iMacs, Apple's average consumer computers will only be dual core for another year yet at least, with the possibility that the high end iMacs will get 4 cores in early 2008 with Penryn, but more likely 2009 with Nehalem (pessimist in me). The only computer that is likely to get 8 cores is the Mac Pro, at least for a couple of years yet, and I'm sure we can all see that Mac Pro users can find a use for that extra power.

 

[Eidorian]

P.S. I might also add that this argument is a bit pointless, because Mac Minis and iMacs, Apple's average consumer computers will only be dual core for another year yet at least, with the possibility that the high end iMacs will get 4 cores in early 2008 with Penryn, but more likely 2009 with Nehalem (pessimist in me). The only computer that is likely to get 8 cores is the Mac Pro, at least for a couple of years yet, and I'm sure we can all see that Mac Pro users can find a use for that extra power.

The biggest issue is putting a quad-core chip that's cool enough into the form factor. If left unchecked a Core Duo can cook the insides at 190° F. It's designed to handle that but it's not fun to see.

We wanted to see Conroe in the iMac a several months ago. We know that the current form factor can at least handle a 45-55 watt TDP processor from the specifications of the PowerPC 970FX.

My guess is that the best quad core we can get for the next two years would fall into that upper area.

 

[Episteme]

The biggest issue is putting a quad-core chip that's cool enough into the form factor. If left unchecked a Core Duo can cook the insides at 190° F. It's designed to handle that but it's not fun to see.

We wanted to see Conroe in the iMac a several months ago. We know that the current form factor can at least handle a 45-55 watt TDP processor from the specifications of the PowerPC 970FX.

My guess is that the best quad core we can get for the next two years would fall into that upper area.

The die-shrink and high-k process are expected to give a fairly decent improvment, heat-wise.

Beyond that, I was just reading Penryn's looking likely to offer HT, so 2+2 looks likely. Still two cores, but it plays four on TV

 

[Eidorian]

The die-shrink and high-k process are expected to give a fairly decent improvment, heat-wise.

Beyond that, I was just reading Penryn's looking likely to offer HT, so 2+2 looks likely. Still two cores, but it plays four on TV

Ah virtual cores then. Sure if programs can take advantage of 2 logical + 2 virtual by then. I remember Hyper-Threading Round 1 on the Pentium 4.

I kept telling people that it would go nowhere. Then Core 2 drops it proving me right. Then it returns with Penryn.

 

[3282872]

Ack! The irony! Although I must suggest again that your standard person generates more heat just by living than your standard computer.



Although I understand where you are coming from, and agree with this to some extent, pretty much any computer built in the last 10 years would fulfil all these roles. But people don't buy 100 Mhz computers with 200 MB HDDs and 16 MB RAM. OSX Tiger/Leopard wouldn't run on it. Safari wouldn't run on it. iTunes wouldn't run on it. So unless you are willing to use 10 year old software running on OS 7, you need a reasonably new computer. It doesn't seem far fetched that in the near future even four or eight cores will fail to run modern software, or even the operating system of the day.

I would also like to point out that for about 3 years of those 5 you mentioned, it is at least my impression that CPU manufacture hit a mini dark age. In like three years, Pentium chips didn't really get much faster, and IBM's G4/G5 really just hovered at between 2-2.5 Ghz. Now of course, we have a doubling of cores every two years, and faster cores in between. So rather than computer performance bein roughly the same, as it was just a few years ago, it is now once again rapidly picking up speed exponentially, and software makers will use it. So your software that runs great on one core today will need four cores in a few years time.

P.S. I might also add that this argument is a bit pointless, because Mac Minis and iMacs, Apple's average consumer computers will only be dual core for another year yet at least, with the possibility that the high end iMacs will get 4 cores in early 2008 with Penryn, but more likely 2009 with Nehalem (pessimist in me). The only computer that is likely to get 8 cores is the Mac Pro, at least for a couple of years yet, and I'm sure we can all see that Mac Pro users can find a use for that extra power.

Still, you haven't stated how technology isn't polluting the environment. E-waste has become a serious problem, especially in third world nations in which newer technology that may use fewer parts is difficult to afford. China had the highest growth in number of computer users per capita in the period 1993-2000. It grew a massive 1052%, compared to a world average of 181%. E-waste from CRT monitors, plastics, lead, mercury, barium, arsenic, beryllium, BFR's, cadmium, CFC's, chromium, selenium and numerous other toxics quickly filling up landfills. In 2000, the U.S. had 2,124,400 tons of ewaste from video products, audio products, computers and telecommunications equipment. Computer parts are made from materials that are NOT eco-friendly, and as society buys more ipods, monitors, keyboards, processors, sound cards, mice, web cams, etc., the more yesterdays products find permanent homes in our backyards.

Recycling current electronic parts isn't solving the situation. The formation or discharge of hazardous emissions during the recycling of electrical and electronic equipment depends highly on the handling of electronic waste. Some recycling processes (as cable burning) applied in transition and developing countries can cause serious health problems and contaminate air, water and soil. A pilot study in San Jose, California found that the cost per pound of glass-to-glass recycling of computer monitors in the US was $0.50 compared to only $0.05 in China.

It's not just about "heat" or energy issues generated from use of electronics, but about the waste from throwing away products that aren't deemed useful based on commercial standards. Just because Apple or Microsoft develop software that requires faster processors, improved monitors and generous amounts of RAM doesn't mean society necessarily NEEDS it (hi, it wasn't too long ago that we were living just fine without cell phones and computer systems, needing and WANTING are two very different concepts). Companies are more concerned with profit margins, annual growth and happy stock holders than about the long-term negative effects their products have on the only planet we live on. Yes, these advancements are fantastic and interesting, why else am I here reading macrumors every morning. However, instead of making it faster and more dazzling, how about using and/or inventing materials that can be easily recycled without harming the environment, or manufacturing products that may be easily upgraded without wasting current parts while still putting money in the hands of the corporations. It's a very similar argument to the combustion engine. In over 100 years, automobiles have become reasonably effecient, yet they still operate on gasoline, one of the biggest contributors to pollution and global warming. Technology such as hydrogen fuel cell (The principle of the fuel cell was discovered by German scientist Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and published in the January 1839 edition of the "Philosophical Magazine") are viable energy options that do not deter the overall performance of automobiles while providing less moving parts and producing water vapor. Electronic manufacturers need to adopt this similar thinking in their production of newer products, bringing harmony between technological advancements and the environment. Otherwise, our obsession with newer and better will undoubtedly be coursing through our viens, literally, in our drinking water and grown foods...

 

[Episteme]

Ah virtual cores then. Sure if programs can take advantage of 2 logical + 2 virtual by then. I remember Hyper-Threading Round 1 on the Pentium 4.

I kept telling people that it would go nowhere. Then Core 2 drops it proving me right. Then it returns with Penryn.

HT on the P4 showed some decent improvements once they tuned the OS schedulers to grok the difference between physical and virtual processors. It wasn't so much a throughput thing as a responsiveness thing -- if you had a CPU bound task permanently pegging the CPU then the system didn't bog down as much. I recall some benchmarks showing mp3 encoding at the same time as gaming showing a decent speedup, too...

I wasn't sure this would be as effective in a dual-core world, purely because instead of a virtual core taking up the slack on unused resources for responsiveness, you've got a real core doing it... so, if the actual throughput change is negligable and the responsiveness isn't really improved...? I guess if you now have two processes/threads that peg CPUs, but it seems unless it improves throughput, it's a diminishing returns thing...

Of course, HT was there to mask the huge latencies introduced by that massive 30+ stage pipeline, which Merom (and presumably Penryn?) isn't lumbered with...

 

[iW00t]

Of course, HT was there to mask the huge latencies introduced by that massive 30+ stage pipeline, which Merom (and presumably Penryn?) isn't lumbered with...

If that is the case why is Hyperthreading making a comeback with Penryn?