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 Shows Off Conroe (Desktop) Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
maxterpiece said:
I think you'd be surprised to see just how many people would indeed be quite content with this scenario.
In the battle between more power and better battery life, many laptop owners would choose the latter, not the former.
20% more performance (REAL performance, not Ghz) in seven months isn't earth-shattering? Are you new to Macs?QCassidy352 said:
Plus they'll be 64-bit like the G5.
I like those gaming benchmarks against AMD. However, when they say 180 average fps in Quake 4, what they don't tell you is that it probably dips down as far as 120
nagromme said:
True. We already know Merom is pin compatible with current Core Duos, so assuming Merom is used in the iMac it shouldn't present too many problems...
Still, could we see a Conroe powered iMac?
Personally, I doubt it... on a side note does anyone know if Conroe will use a different socket to Merom?
maxterpiece said:
Performance per watt means higher performance at the same level of power usage. You know, kind of like 20% better performance at the same battery life. So this is delivering EXACTLY what steve jobs said it would. It wasn't about better battery life, it was about more power without frying the computer, and more power being available in a laptop. battery performance is obviously important to, but these will smoke the G4's at the same power usage. That's a GOOD thing.
And this is precisely why Apple jumped ship from IBM. They have nothing to compete with this... And can you imagine a dual quad-core Mac??
Hmm...well the G4 was dead on the mobile mac platform and mini...but how will Conroe really compare to the Quad G5? Given that the Pentium M architecture performs at around clock-for-clock the same as a G5 equivalent, we would need two Conroes at at least 2.8Ghz to match or beat the Quad G5..right?
~Shard~ said:
I think you're right, Shard, as usual. The question is, now that the performance (at least according to these numbers) is much improved, will Intel do something to enhance the battery life? Apple portables were stuck with relatively little innovation for so long that perhaps more power is a play to compensate for any perceived repuation they might have acquired.
Woodcrest in Power Macs
Would'nt Woodcrest as a replacement for the Xeon be the only proc that coluld be used in a dual proc configeration. Therefore it would be the logical replacement for the high-end Power Macs. I think most people who buy Power Macs are more concerned with speed not power consumption or price point.
Would'nt Woodcrest as a replacement for the Xeon be the only proc that coluld be used in a dual proc configeration. Therefore it would be the logical replacement for the high-end Power Macs. I think most people who buy Power Macs are more concerned with speed not power consumption or price point.
d.perel said:cool stuff... laaaaame names
Well those are the intel "code name" for the chip
I dont know about you but i dont think a "7447" G4 sounds any better then a "merom" core duo
Anyways, these conroe benchmark agains the athlon 64 x2 are quite impressive
Why would you want any of these for a PowerMAc?
If you are building a notebook, or a small desktop like a Mini or an iMac then "power matters." You can't get the heat out of such a small enclosure without a huge noisy fan. So use these new chips when compute power per watt matters
What I don't understand is way you'd want them in a Power Mac replacement If you want a Power Mac replacement you can make a nice one today. No waiting. Simply build one of these
http://tinyurl.com/zsaxg
but put it in a pretty box and load Mac OSX on it The specs are just about right for a PoerMac. It's the only thing I've seen that would seriously outperform a G5 Quad Core Powermac It that's not enough Sun has four chip. eight core Opertoon boxes that have been sellig for some time now.
I just don't see Intel catching up to AMD at the high end.
If you are building a notebook, or a small desktop like a Mini or an iMac then "power matters." You can't get the heat out of such a small enclosure without a huge noisy fan. So use these new chips when compute power per watt matters
What I don't understand is way you'd want them in a Power Mac replacement If you want a Power Mac replacement you can make a nice one today. No waiting. Simply build one of these
http://tinyurl.com/zsaxg
but put it in a pretty box and load Mac OSX on it The specs are just about right for a PoerMac. It's the only thing I've seen that would seriously outperform a G5 Quad Core Powermac It that's not enough Sun has four chip. eight core Opertoon boxes that have been sellig for some time now.
I just don't see Intel catching up to AMD at the high end.
Say again? If what you say about Pentium-M vs G5 is true, then two Conroes at 2.1GHz would match the current G5 Quad.Legacy said:
Check out Anand's benchmarks of Conroe that were just published:ChrisA said:
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713
They benchmark it against an overclocked Athlon64 FX-60 (@ 2.8GHz). The Conroe CPU runs at 2.66GHz and thoroughly smashes the Athlon64 performance wise. It should also be a good deal cooler.
This sure doesn't look good for AMD.
EDIT: Might be worth noting that Intel supplied both systems and most of the benchmarks. Anand couldn't find anything fishy about the systems when he inspected them, though.
Hi everyone! I'm a first time macrumors poster but long time reader.
I'm curious to know why some of you automatically assume that Conroe is going into the PowerMacs? Maybe you all know something I don't, but Woodcrest is suppose to be replacing Xeon and Xeon processors have found there way into not just servers but workstations in the PC market. I would think that Woodcrest would be the preferred processor in PowerMacs rather than Conroe if the price is right.
I'm curious to know why some of you automatically assume that Conroe is going into the PowerMacs? Maybe you all know something I don't, but Woodcrest is suppose to be replacing Xeon and Xeon processors have found there way into not just servers but workstations in the PC market. I would think that Woodcrest would be the preferred processor in PowerMacs rather than Conroe if the price is right.
~Shard~ said:Great news, it's nice to see some of this made "official" by Intel, as all I had heard up to this point was unconfirmed #s.
Conroe PowerMacs are going to be great, and it will be nice to see the Xserve get Woodcrest.
Agreed... My credit card will take another punishing when me sees a merom macbook pro
realityisterror said:
lol... so did i... funny how we all perceived the pronunciation so differently...
kahos said:
Yes, but you are comparing a not yet released for sale Intel chip against a not top of the line AMD. AMD's top performer is the Operon.
ChrisA said:
i don't quite agree with you there. i used to think the same thing about PPC when they had a significant lead over intel around the G3 era. coupled with the RISC/CISC marketing it seemed intel was on the way out.
while i do believe they will catch and surpass AMD for a while, the very fact that intel has legitimate competition is a good thing for apple. neither ibm or motorola cared about the desktop platform or apple's small orders; at least not beyond the free marketing they got by piggy backing on the jobsian RDF field. motorola is almost completely focused on the embedded market, while ibm is laughing themselves silly with the next gen gaming consoles and to a lesser extent their server market. intel meanwhile is probably a bit worried about microsoft's "defection" with the xbox 360 and looking for a high profile client to get/keep them in the living room.
The problem with putting a Conroe in a power mac is that the Conroe would not be capable of a dual proc config. Only the woodcrest would be. Unless you know something we dont.