Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Quietly Ships 2.33 GHz Core Duo
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
aswitcher said:
there is always a newer chip around the corner.
based on your logic.. apple should never update anything
I think you can bet your *ss that Apple is planning to use this chip in upgraded MBP's and, eventually, MB's. When? That's a marketing decision but you know Apple has some of these chips powering some "mules" in their labs.
I think this is pretty cool - people who buy/acquired the lowest end iMac Core Duos can now upgrade for the price of a new processor. Great
How much is one if I were to buy one from retail? (just wondering, wouldn't until september when prices should plummet)
What happened to the rumored Woodcrests on June 26 and the Xserves?!
What happened to the rumored Woodcrests on June 26 and the Xserves?!
so i dont understand why apple wouldnt update the chips quietly, if its no extra cost to them?
also isnt 2.3 ghz just as fast as the fastest merom?
"The Merom processors are expected to be labeled as the "T5X00" and "T7x00" Core 2 Duo models, the T5600 clocked at 1.83 GHz, the T7200 clocked at 2.0 GHz, the T7400 clocked at 2.16 GHz, and the T7600 clocked at 2.33 GHz"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
so im not really sure what intel is doing there. why would they make a chip and put it on the market w/ the same speed as their new chip (merom)? now the only advantage to waiting for merom is the 64 bit capabilities.
also isnt 2.3 ghz just as fast as the fastest merom?
"The Merom processors are expected to be labeled as the "T5X00" and "T7x00" Core 2 Duo models, the T5600 clocked at 1.83 GHz, the T7200 clocked at 2.0 GHz, the T7400 clocked at 2.16 GHz, and the T7600 clocked at 2.33 GHz"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
so im not really sure what intel is doing there. why would they make a chip and put it on the market w/ the same speed as their new chip (merom)? now the only advantage to waiting for merom is the 64 bit capabilities.
There are many difference between merom and yonah besides simply 64-bit capability. They have improved SSE botlenecks, improved virtualization technologies, widened many of the data paths. A Merom at 2.33 Ghz will be much faster then a current Yonah at 2.33 Ghz.
fastlane1588 said:
My basic understanding is that Merom is more efficient at the same clock speed. I could be wrong.... and it wouldn't be the first time...
:/
fastlane1588 said:
Who says it is no extra cost to Apple? Intel isn't a charity. The 2.33GHz chip will be more expensive than the 2.16GHz chip; I would think about $600 instead of $400 for orders of 1000.
manic said:
because apple's quality control is now the userbase that purchases their rev A products. once the second revision comes out, they should hopefully be less hot and have none of those discoloration and metling magsafe problems. in a way i don't think they wanted everyone to buy a macbook because they knew there was a chance of problems and maybe a recall
.I can see a stealth upgrade:
MacBook at 1.83/2 GHz
MacBook Pro at 2.16/2.33 GHz
Helps to differentiate more clearly..
Maybe:
iMac at 1.83/2.0
"Mac" at 2.16/2.33 Conroe in July
Mac Pro with Woodcrest Quad in June?
Bumps every three months...!!
Wonder what next Tuesday will bring?
MacBook at 1.83/2 GHz
MacBook Pro at 2.16/2.33 GHz
Helps to differentiate more clearly..
Maybe:
iMac at 1.83/2.0
"Mac" at 2.16/2.33 Conroe in July
Mac Pro with Woodcrest Quad in June?
Bumps every three months...!!
Wonder what next Tuesday will bring?
I think they're going to change the MacBook Pros over to the Core 2 Duo's. Maybe an announcement along with the new Mac Pros at WWDC?
And then save this 2.33 Core Duo as a future update to the MacBooks.
Just my two cents...
And then save this 2.33 Core Duo as a future update to the MacBooks.
Just my two cents...
deputy_doofy said:
You can find a detailed explanation in an article by David Kanter at
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT030906143144
An excellent comparison of Pentium 4 (Netburst Architecture), Yonah / Core Duo and Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest (Core Architecture). Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest look very impressive indeed; it looks like they can even beat a G5 in floating-point heavy applications.
Think about it
That would not be a good thing to me. An iSight on the 30incher would look right over the top of your head. You'd have to constantly move the screen angle down and most of the bottom part of the monitor would be facing the desktop. I say make them smaller and sleeker but keep them stand alone.
Object-X said:
That would not be a good thing to me. An iSight on the 30incher would look right over the top of your head. You'd have to constantly move the screen angle down and most of the bottom part of the monitor would be facing the desktop. I say make them smaller and sleeker but keep them stand alone.
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.gnasher729 said:
But I think more to the point, "no extra cost" you're replying to refers to the new processor coming it at roughly the same price point, which bumps all the other models into lower prices. So for about the same price as they've been buying 2.16 Yonahs, they now have 2.33 Yonahs. Of course, there are any number of factors that might make that observation untrue.
riversky said:
yea but apple isnt dumb, they wouldnt put it on there unless it would work properly..... maybe a piviting camera? thatd be cool
These chips have been announced well ahead of WWDC, I wonder if we'll see the announcement of MacBook Pro updates to utilize the 2.33 chips to widen the gap between the MacBook Pro's and MacBooks.
The U2500 makes me wonder if we'll see the 12" PowerBook replacement as well.
The U2500 makes me wonder if we'll see the 12" PowerBook replacement as well.
riversky said:
I agree. I don't understand why everyone wants Apple to put iSight's on displays. People who connect them to iMac's, MacBooks, and MacBook Pro's would have two iSights. A built-in iSight would just add to the cost of the displays, which are already way overpriced.
On another note, I think Apple will release an updated iSight soon, as they aren't allowed to sell the old ones in Europe anymore.
WildCowboy said:
When I started using Apple hardware, the CPUs ran at 1MHz (Apple ][).
Let's see - it was 10 years ago when Sun released the 170MHz UltraSPARC CPU, for example. 'Bout the same time, the 200MHz Pentium was around, and Apple had 604e systems running at 150Mhz.
The trouble with the 170Mhz boost is that it's not really worth it in my mind. There is no way you're going to really feel a difference between 2.0Ghz and 2.33GHz (for example). That's all of a 16.5% boost, big deal - If my brain is working, that means a 60-second task would take 55.2 seconds. Certainly nothing like going from a 16MHz Mac IIx to a 40MHz Mac IIfx.
But, there will always be people wanting to pay for the "big number".
kumbaya said:I can see a stealth upgrade:
MacBook at 1.83/2 GHz
MacBook Pro at 2.16/2.33 GHz
Helps to differentiate more clearly..
Maybe:
iMac at 1.83/2.0
"Mac" at 2.16/2.33 Conroe in July
Mac Pro with Woodcrest Quad in June?
Bumps every three months...!!
Wonder what next Tuesday will bring?
Why does everyone forget the Mac Mini?
