Intel Shows Off Conroe (Desktop) Processors

[QCassidy352]

Merom is what Conroe and Woodcrest are based off, so I wouldn't slam it too badly.

oh, i'm not slamming it; I'm excited for it. But as someone else posted, I'd like to see an increase in battery life over an increase in processor power. More power at the same consumption is always good, but how 'bout a laptop that really lasts 7 hours?

 

[ChrisA]

Woodcrest is meant for the server market so it's possible Apple will use it in the new XServes. The PowerMac's replacement may well use Conroe, which fits the workstation category.

Why does Apple ned a high end CPU in an XServe? What do those run that needs it? They are mostly used as file servers. or maybe directory services and light duty web hosting. You don't see high CPU usage for these tasks

On the other hand people sometimes use PowerMacs to render hD video wich is typically 100% CPU bound.

 

[arn]

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 don't think anyone knows... but it has been what the speculation has been.

arn

 

[Analog Kid]

I still can't get myself excited about watching the Intel roadmap... Feels a little like rooting for the pace car, or watching the rabbit at the dog track. There's nothing to bite your nails over-- whatever they do is vanilla by definition and everyone else is compared against it.

I guess this is what we're in for though-- 10% here, 20% there... Just enough to keep the quarter over quarter sales at Intel on a steady curve.

Gone are the days of realizing over the course of a year or two that what you have is probably good enough to last you for a while and then having a rabbit come out of the hat with a 200% performance increase before the years of rumors and false hopes start over again. I'll miss the mood swings and the careful analysis of whether the PPC is slightly better or slightly worse than, well... Intel.

 

[boncellis]

Intel Worried?

...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.

As much as I would like to believe you, I just don't see Intel getting too worried. I don't mean to imply that they are complacent, but I am impressed with the roadmap and the offerings they have heretofore provided.

You may be proven correct in the not to distant future--the more I read about the VIIV architecture the more I'm impressed with the possibilities. Could Intel come up with some fusion of gaming and home entertainment (music, video downloads) in one box for the living room?

I apologize in advance if my speculation is too far off topic for this thread.

 

[nagromme]

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.

That's an important point, and one I hadn't run across before this thread.

Is that something Intel has stated? Or just something people are assuming?

I do think dual-duals are to be expected in Intel PowerMacs--at least in high-end models when it becomes possible. Is that known to be impossible with Conroe?

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

Performance per watt also means the same performance with lower power usage. Ratios are funny that way...

I think Intel usually sells "low voltage" and "ultra low voltage" versions of their chips too, don't they? There's probably going to be a version optimized for low power, it's just not a glamorous. Merom can probably get the same performance as Yonah with 30-40% less power, I'd guess. It's those last MIPS that cost the most juice...

 

[ZorPrime]

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.

good points but let's not also forget IBM's making a grip of $$$ from it's many R&D contracts developing BlueGene, then there's cell.

 

[shawnce]

so why did apple put a mobile chip on the imac?

...because the Core Duos are available now and they perform rather well and run rather cool compared to the G5 they replaced. They also are a better chip then any other currently shipping desktop chip from Intel with the heat profile needed for the iMac case.

 

[blackfox]

I do think dual-duals are to be expected in Intel PowerMacs--at least in high-end models when it becomes possible. Is that known to be impossible with Conroe?

Depending on timing, you may see quad-core chips finding their way into PMs or Xserves. Intels quad-core (clovertown iirc) are expected Q1 2007, making them a potential for a revB PM/Xserve, or even a late revA (with shipping delays).

 

[danielwsmithee]

Woodcrest

I do think dual-duals are to be expected in Intel PowerMacs--at least in high-end models when it becomes possible. Is that known to be impossible with Conroe?

I think PowerMacs will be Woodcrest based for this reason. The Conroe will be used in the iMac and maybe lowest end PowerMac. Merom in MacBook Pro and CoreDuo in the iBook and mini.

I've got the CCard ready for a Conroe based iMac!!!

 

[chaos86]

does it feel weird to anyone else here having intel chip announcements on the MR front page?

well i guess it's about to become a regular occurance since they tend to update their lines every time they sneeze.

 

[shawnce]

That's an important point, and one I hadn't run across before this thread.

Is that something Intel has stated? Or just something people are assuming?

I do think dual-duals are to be expected in Intel PowerMacs--at least in high-end models when it becomes possible. Is that known to be impossible with Conroe?

Maybe Kentsfield is the desktop class answer to that question...

Desktop Platform
Desktops can deliver greater compute performance as well as ultra-quiet, sleek and low-power designs.

Intel is developing a desktop-optimized, dual-core processor based on the new, state of the art, Intel Core microarchitecture, codenamed Conroe. The Conroe processor will work within the 2006 Digital Home platform codenamed Bridge Creek, and the 2006 Digital Office platform, codnamed Averill. Conroe is targeted for introduction in the third quarter of 2006.

Intel will also deliver a quad-core (4 full execution cores) processor to the high-end desktop based upon this new microarchitecture, codenamed Kentsfield. Kentsfield is targeted for introduction in the first quarter of 2007.

The Kentsfield appears to two Conroe dies (or very close relatives of) in a single package.

 

[boncellis]

If Only...

...I've got the CCard ready for a Conroe based iMac!!!

When you say "CCard" do you mean CableCard? jk

 

[DeathChill]

no conroe cpu will ever be used in a powermac, ever woodcrest is whats going in powermacs, conroe is not an SMP chip, apple is not giveing up on dual physical cpu workstations, and will at least have quads, if not an all quad lineup.

Uh, I don't see why Apple wouldn't use Conroe since it will be available first. They will be a dual CPU workstation, without the hassle of two separate chips.

 

[DVK916]

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?

It is far more likely that we will see a Conroe iMac and a Merom iMac. There is no reason to go with Merom for an iMac.


Those wondering how to pronounce Merom, it is a hebrew word so just ask someone who speaks hebrew how you would say it.

 

[shawnce]

Uh, I don't see why Apple wouldn't use Conroe since it will be available first. They will be a dual CPU workstation, without the hassle of two separate chips.

I also see Apple using the Conroe in the PowerMac replacement since a dual core Conroe will outperform any dual core PowerMac and outperform a quad core PowerMac in all but thread heavy work loads (likely hold its own even then).

I think we may see quad core Intel "PowerMac" systems in early 2007 with dual core coming in late 2006.

 

[DVK916]

I think PowerMacs will be Woodcrest based for this reason. The Conroe will be used in the iMac and maybe lowest end PowerMac. Merom in MacBook Pro and CoreDuo in the iBook and mini.

I've got the CCard ready for a Conroe based iMac!!!

This is what I am thinking as well.

Woodcrest for PowerMac
Conroe for iMac
Merom for MacBook Pro

and Core Duo for iBook and mini

 

[runninmac]

I still can't get myself excited about watching the Intel roadmap... Feels a little like rooting for the pace car, or watching the rabbit at the dog track. There's nothing to bite your nails over-- whatever they do is vanilla by definition and everyone else is compared against it.

I guess this is what we're in for though-- 10% here, 20% there... Just enough to keep the quarter over quarter sales at Intel on a steady curve.

Gone are the days of realizing over the course of a year or two that what you have is probably good enough to last you for a while and then having a rabbit come out of the hat with a 200% performance increase before the years of rumors and false hopes start over again. I'll miss the mood swings and the careful analysis of whether the PPC is slightly better or slightly worse than, well... Intel.

Have you seen the tests against AMD's top processor thats been overclocked? I bet not. It even should be getting faster than that by the time its ready for retail and it will also be offered in a 3.0 extreme edition. Read/look that before you start pooping on everyone parade.

 

[runninmac]

This is what I am thinking as well.

Woodcrest for PowerMac
Conroe for iMac
Merom for MacBook Pro

and Core Duo for iBook and mini

Is there any reason why a Server chip shouldnt be in a desktop? Are they just better overall except for the power consumption? What about in games?

 

[shawnce]

It is far more likely that we will see a Conroe iMac and a Merom iMac. There is no reason to go with Merom for an iMac.

I doubt Apple will use higher wattage chip in the iMac given the iMacs form factor. Apple may stay with using high-end versions of laptop chips. In the end it likely comes down to cost to Apple (chip price)... between using a low-end desktop or high-end laptop chips.

 

[DVK916]

I doubt Apple will use higher wattage chip in the iMac given the iMacs form factor. Apple may stay with using high-end versions of laptop chips. In the end it likely comes down to cost to Apple (chip price)... between using a low-end desktop or high-end laptop chips.

iMac form factor should still be able to work with a Conroe. Remember the iMac housed G5s in them and we know what power hogs those were. Per clock Merom will cost more than Conroe. So based on cost Apple will go with Conroe.

 

[shawnce]

iMac form factor should still be able to work with a Conroe. Remember the iMac housed G5s in them and we know what power hogs those were. Per clock Merom will cost more than Conroe. So based on cost Apple will go with Conroe.

The G5s used in the iMac ran in the 30-50 watt range which is still below the Conroe (depending on which clock rate of Conroe you use). Also the mother board in the iMac Core Duo can support 1st generation Merom but not the Conroe, that would be a cost savings.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Is there any reason why a Server chip shouldnt be in a desktop? Are they just better overall except for the power consumption? What about in games?

Well, with the new 'Core' lineup, the processors are at their core all the same. It's just the extra functions that differ. The server and laptop chips will probably have a slower front side bus than the desktop chip (for power reasons on the laptop; for 'stability' reasons on the server,) and the server chip MAY include extra server-related functionality that the others don't. (Virtualization would fall in this category, but even the Core Duo has it, so it's not a great example.)

For example, currently, the Core Duo is only on a 667 MHz bus, and only just moved to that; while the desktop Pentium 4 and Pentium D are on an 800 MHz bus, and have been there for a few years. Server Xeons JUST moved to an 800 MHz bus, after being on 667 or even 533 MHz, depending on the use, for many years. And the ultra-high-end desktop Pentium Extreme Editions use a 1066 MHz bus. And while Core Duo is a different 'core' than Pentium 4/D or Xeon, P4/D and Xeon all share the same basic core. So there are many variations only in bus speed in that family; much less in other areas of design.

In games, they should perform equally to an equal-spec desktop or mobile chip. So a current Xeon 1MB L2 cache 3.2 GHz on an 800 MHz bus should perform identically to a Pentium 4 1 MB L2 cache 3.2 GHz on an 800 MHz bus. (Or even a Pentium 4-M of same spec, the direct mobile equivalent of the Pentium 4; although Intel is positioning the Core Duo to replace that as the 'high end' mobile chip at present, in preparation for the replacement of the whole Pentium 4 line with the Core line later this year.)

 

[DavidCar]

My quad-Conroe Mac tower gets closer to reality
...

My question is whether a four core Conroe will be pin compatible with a dual core Conroe, allowing a processor upgrade to double the number of cores.