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

Intel Launching Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom Early?

Norse Son said:
Speaking of APIs, that Cringley blog, if ("if") true, would represent the real Holy Grail - no need to even buy & install Windows on our Macs in order to use certain apps we can't find in the Mac software aisle.
Click to expand...
I don't see this happening anytime soon for a few reasons.

1) Implementing a Win32 (and 64 bit variant) or WinFX/WPF library is non-trival... in fact near impossible to do 100% and would require continuous maintenance,

2) Licensing such a thing from Microsoft – if they are even interested – would be expensive and likely add a per unit cost to Mac OS X which feeds Microsoft's coffers and penalizes Mac OS X users that don't even use Windows applications,

3) Supporting Windows application running on such a library would be a nightmare (few application vendors would want to support their applications in such a configuration and neither would Apple),

4) It would give some 3rd party developers more of an excuse to not develop Mac OS X native software and hence could potentially have a negative impact on the Mac OS X software ecosystem (personally I think Mac users generally set higher standards so they would be more likely to demand a native Mac OS X application, either getting the developer to make such a thing or encourage a competitor to do it instead),

5) Running windows applications next to Mac OS X application would degrade the solution and user experience that Apple provides with Mac OS X and its related software families (this is one of the mainstays and mantras),

6) Virtualization will allow the booting of Windows for those that really need it while providing a better separation between Mac OS X and Window... this is far easier for Apple and puts the support issue back onto MS and Window's application developers.

Now as things play out we may see Window's technologies/API come to Mac OS X (aspects of WinFX, WPF, .NET, etc.) that make it easier for Windows developers to bring their applications to Mac OS X.... personally I would love to see Apple make Cocoa available on Vista... which would allow Mac OS X development houses to go after Windows customers.
 
MrCrowbar said:
And as the upcoming Intel processors will all have 64 (correct me if I'm wrong)
Click to expand...
You are correct, all current Intel desktop CPUs are already 64-bit (older 32-bit designs are still being sold, but the current passes of all desktops are 64-bit). Yonah is the only "current" CPU that is 32-bit.

The NGMA chips (Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest...) are 64-bit.

AFAIK, Intel has not said whether the upcoming extremely low power (sub-watt - for PDAs, phones, ...) x86 chips will be 32-bit or 64-bit.
 
Photorun said:
You may want to turn on your humor detector and see if you get a read.
Click to expand...

OK, I turned it on. Nope...I still don't see the humor. :confused: No offense though, as I seldom laugh at silly things unless I've been drinking. :p
 
THX1139 said:
OK, I turned it on. Nope...I still don't see the humor. :confused: No offense though, as I seldom laugh at silly things unless I've been drinking. :p
Click to expand...

You're clearly then not a true Mac fan because with the rollercoaster ride Apple has had since the beginning sometimes all one has left is a sense of humor.
 
AidenShaw said:
You are correct, all current Intel desktop CPUs are already 64-bit (older 32-bit designs are still being sold, but the current passes of all desktops are 64-bit). Yonah is the only "current" CPU that is 32-bit.

The NGMA chips (Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest...) are 64-bit.

AFAIK, Intel has not said whether the upcoming extremely low power (sub-watt - for PDAs, phones, ...) x86 chips will be 32-bit or 64-bit.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... so the next generation of Mac will have true 64 bit... <thinking about not buying one until then :rolleyes: ) > Oh well, I need one now. Still, I can't decide on whether an iMac/Macbook combination or a Macbook Pro. Is it true that you can use slower RAM in the iMac and Macbook Pro than suggested? I read somewhere you can use PC533 too wothout slowing anything down. True?
 
Eight Core Woodcrest Machine shown at IDF

Ars Technica has a note with a link indicating there was an Apple Woodcrest workstation at IDF, which I assume was the Intel Developer Forum in early March, and that workstation showed eight cores, suggesting two sockets with four cores each. A four core Woodcrest is called a Clovertown, and is pin compatible with Woodcrest.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/4/22/3712

Correction: It looks like the IDF reference was to an Intel forum in Taipei, Taiwan. So I don't know when the date was. There is a photo in the Ars note that is not in the original New Zealand article, so I don't know where the photo came from, or if it is of the eight core machine.

Correction2: It is also not clear if it was an Apple eight core machine, or an Intel eight core machine. I recall reading some blurb a while back indicating that Intel was contracted by Apple to make the Intel PowerMac (or whatever) motherboard. So it could be an Intel motherboard, but the same or similar to the one Apple will get.
 
64-bit hardware, yes - 64-bit software, we're still waiting to hear

MrCrowbar said:
Hmmm... so the next generation of Mac will have true 64 bit... <thinking about not buying one until then :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...
The CPUs either support 64-bit virtual addressing or they don't - there's not a whole of a "grey" in that dimension. Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are full 64-bit capable CPUs.

The "trueness" of 64-bit is a software question. Can all programs use 64-bit virtual addressing without restrictions?

Currently, Windows 64-bit, Linux 64-bit, UNIX 64-bit (Solaris/AIX/IRIX/HPUX/...) all support mostly unrestricted 64-bit programs. All APIs are 64-bit, all programs can use 64-bit - there are more likely to be restrictions on 32-bit programs than 64-bit programs. It's not unusual, however, for drivers and kernel code to be 64-bit only - no 32-bit allowed in privileged software. (Also, obsolete "legacy" APIs might be 32-bit only.)

OSX 10.4, on the other hand, is a 32-bit operating system with limited support for special 64-bit environments. Terminal apps or services can be 64-bit, but they can't use Carbon or Cocoa or and graphical interfaces.

Windows/Linux/UNIX are true 64-bit, OSX is 32-bit with limited 64-bit support for special processes.
__________________________________________

Apple has been completely silent about 64-bit since last June. Nobody knows what their plans are, or when they may introduce 64-bit support to OSx86. The silence has been deafening.

Many of us are predicting/assuming that they'll abandon the lame 64-bit features of OSX 10.4 and move to true 64-bit (but only for Intel systems).

WWDC'06 this August would be a likely time to announce that 10.5 will be true 64-bit (on Intel only), and that the PowerPC implementation (with the lame extensions) is frozen at 32-bit.

Note that although the Yonah CPU used in MiniMacIntel and the iMacIntel are 32-bit chips, the rest of the current Intel lineup is 64-bit. Even the Intel Developer Transition Kit (DTK) systems released at WWDC'05 last year had 64-bit CPUs that were forced to 32-bit mode.
 
the.snitch said:
I cant wait till the 64bit meroms get into the macs. It may convince me to upgrade to a MBP. And we are getting closer to the day when every mac will be 64-bit :cool:
Click to expand...

Who cares about 64-bit in a laptop? Even if you top out your MBP with 2GB of RAM, you're still 2GB away from the 4GB limit of traditional 32-bit....
 
john123 said:
Who cares about 64-bit in a laptop? Even if you top out your MBP with 2GB of RAM, you're still 2GB away from the 4GB limit of traditional 32-bit....
Click to expand...

before someone goes and reiterates at length, x64 is faster besides being able to address more than 4GB of RAM.
 
MBP should support 4GiB, anyway

john123 said:
Who cares about 64-bit in a laptop? Even if you top out your MBP with 2GB of RAM, you're still 2GB away from the 4GB limit of traditional 32-bit....
Click to expand...
The Napa chipset used in the MBP and iMacIntel supports 4 GiB of RAM (need two 2 GiB SO-DIMMs).

The other Intel notebook manufacturers are selling Yonah notebooks with 4 GiB - but Apple doesn't yet list the option.

And, not only is x64 faster than x86 - you'll be future-proofed for the day when OSx64-only applications arrive. (And the day when OSX drops 32-bit support completely.)

(ps: "traditional" 32-bit chips like the G4 and x86 support up to 64 GiB of RAM - the 32-bit limit is per application, not a limit for the entire system. Chipset limits may be lower than the limits of the CPUs)
 
mattyturner said:
That's tosh if ever I read it.
Click to expand...

Why? Let's review your argument:

AMD can't even afford to fully transition their fabs right now to the latest process. By the time they do (get to 65nm) Intel will be looking at 45nm.
Click to expand...

Yea, so clearly the argument that AMD is pressuring Intel performance-wise is "tosh" then, no?

Unlike the current generation though AMD may not beat Intel (and conroe) in the high performance stakes this time round, or it will be close.
Click to expand...

...but now I get confused - because according to you, Intel is both way ahead in the architecture game (that's why this story is "tosh", remember?), yet also lagging in "the high performance stakes". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't lagging in performance be like, bad? (Way more relevant than the manufacturing procedure used!) And wouldn't that make this story quite likely to be true, contrary to your assertion?
 
New Macbooks or Macbook Thins.

Do you believe Apple can surprise us and put top line core duos in the new Macbooks ? If we´re talking about in MAcbook Pro´s upgrade, Core Duo´s price falling, Conroe and Memrom antecipation, why not a new Macbook Thin 13.3" with 2 ghz and 168 mb video ?

Doesn´t sound delicious ?!??!?
 
iBooks/MacBooks Will Likely Have Yonah Core Duo

Hendi said:
Do you believe Apple can surprise us and put top line core duos in the new Macbooks ? If we´re talking about in MAcbook Pro´s upgrade, Core Duo´s price falling, Conroe and Memrom antecipation, why not a new Macbook Thin 13.3" with 2 ghz and 168 mb video ?

Doesn´t sound delicious ?!??!?
Click to expand...
Also sounds impossible. I don't see MacBooks having Merom before next summer while Intel continues to sell Yonahs for less and less money until they don't have any capacity to make Yonah any more. :) Just another way to differentiate MacBooks from MacBook Pros.
 
Sorry, I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but based on the thread subject, I figured I'd post this from Computerworld. Could it possibly be a leak?

"Apple customers may be the first to enjoy Intel’s new CPU goodies, with the Woodcrest family of processors making it into Macintosh workstations as early as the third quarter. Woodcrest systems will be symmetric multi processing (SMP), with dual processors with up to four cores each. One such machine was demonstrated at IDF, running benchmarks under Windows XP 64-bit edition, showing eight active cores."


http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/48AAEE3A287A6213CC25714F000230BC
 
Not a leak, just confused

icab said:
Sorry, I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but based on the thread subject, I figured I'd post this from Computerworld. Could it possibly be a leak?

"Apple customers may be the first to enjoy Intel’s new CPU goodies, with the Woodcrest family of processors making it into Macintosh workstations as early as the third quarter. Woodcrest systems will be symmetric multi processing (SMP), with dual processors with up to four cores each. One such machine was demonstrated at IDF, running benchmarks under Windows XP 64-bit edition, showing eight active cores."


http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/48AAEE3A287A6213CC25714F000230BC
Click to expand...
Woodcrest is dual-core.... Not quad core. Therefore one should question any of the "facts" in the article.

And, do you really think that Intel would p#ss off HP/IBM/Dell by giving Apple exclusive first access to anything? What better way to get them to add more AMD systems to their lineup....

Sounds like an article of wishful thinking written by one of the Apple fanbois, not a reasonable or realistic appraisal of Intel's roadmap or Intel's history of equal treatment of their partners.
 
I don't think Merom in MacBook Pro is so far away from announcement.
Intel launched its Core Duo line of microprocessors on january the 5th and Apple announced its MacBook Pro on January the 9th. They shipped MBP one month later, but thats acceptable waiting time for Apple.

But as AidenShaw proclaimed many times before, its worthwhile to wait for next generation MBP and Intel's Merom Generation. AMD's Opteron runs on this standard for such a long time. Why buying an overhauled product?

And as Jobs said at macworld: "we want to build the best computers in the world and it became very clear that the way to do that is to use your newest technology you'll rolling out this year".
And I don't think he meant Core Duo (yonah) by saying "rolling out this year".
 
Morice said:
And I don't think he meant Core Duo by saying "rolling out this year".
Click to expand...
Interesting take on Jobs' statement - although you really mean "Yonah" more than "Core Duo".

Many articles are assuming that Merom will also be called "Core", so that a dual-core Merom might be a "Core Duo T7600".

The "brand name" stretches over several generations of chip architecture. For example, some Pentium 4 chips have Hyper-threading, some don't. Some are 64-bit, some are 32-bit. Some have VT, some don't. A new chip design doesn't require a new name.
 
Oh come on, you know what I mean. But what you think about Merom in MacBooks Pro. When its gonna be out in shops?
 
Morice said:
Oh come on, you know what I mean. But what you think about Merom in MacBooks Pro. When its gonna be out in shops?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I knew what you meant - but I wanted to point out that Merom won't be replacing the Core Duo, it *will* be a Core Duo.

Q3 (July to September) is just a guess/rumour at this point in time.

Typically, Intel will start shipping chips in volume a month or so before the announcement day - so that manufacturers have systems to show (and sell) on announcement day. By the end of spring (northern) we should be hearing more about this.
 
AidenShaw said:
Woodcrest is dual-core.... Not quad core. Therefore one should question any of the "facts" in the article.

And, do you really think that Intel would p#ss off HP/IBM/Dell by giving Apple exclusive first access to anything? What better way to get them to add more AMD systems to their lineup....

Sounds like an article of wishful thinking written by one of the Apple fanbois, not a reasonable or realistic appraisal of Intel's roadmap or Intel's history of equal treatment of their partners.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the article? It's more a summary of the message Intel was trying to get out at IDF than a wish list of a hopeful fanboi - only 1 paragraph even mentions Apple. At the end of the article, it even states that the journalist who wrote it traveled to Taipei for IDF "courtesy of Intel", so the source would seem reasonably credible, although this does not make him/her infallible.

Having said that, I agree with you that I have not seen any evidence that Woodcrest will be any more than dual core, although we also know that Intel is working on quad core chips that will likely come out next year.
 
New chips compatible with current MBP's???

Sorry to deflect away from the argurement here.. but i just have one question for you all.

When these great new chips are released, will I have the option of upgrading my MBP Core Duo with the new processor? (At a realistic price)

I've heard a few rumours that the current processors are soldered on so they cannot be replaced..

Please explain.. :eek:
 
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