Whistleway said:
Same reason they did with the Mini. Keep it small and tight, re-use laptop components.
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
Same reason they did with the Mini. Keep it small and tight, re-use laptop components.
chaos86 said:
I thought that too! Mac announcements used to be fighting for attention AGAINST Intel events like IDF, now they are intimately joined.
jabooth said:You're right nataku. I have told myself that I won't play the waiting game, but I'm about to buy my first Mac, I don't want it to be outdated in a few months!
I'm not bothered about the increased speed - its the 32/64bit issue that worries me more...
Don't worry jabooth. A Core-Duo iMac is a very smart investment. Since this is your first mac, you don't have to worry about being outdated very very fast, unlike in the PC world. I'm a switcher myself. I had my powerbook since november last year. It is still going strong and I still like the performance. Don't worry about the 64bit thing. Mac OS X is a 32 bit os running on a 32 bit kernel. A 64bit Mac OS X is still out of the question since Apple won't force its customers to transition 2 times in such a short time (PowerPC to Intel and 32bit to 64bit). That would be very unApple
Developers are also just starting to master the 32bit Intel code. so I suggest you get the Core-Duo Intel iMac. If you have the extra cash, by all means get the Conroe version (if any) later this year. If you don't have the extra cash, dont you worry about buying one right now. You will know what I mean when you get one.Whistleway said:
People forget that an iMac really is of laptop form factor...
Yes, it is slightly larger than a laptop, (and does incorperate a much bigger screen) but it is still only a few inches deep. The heatsink and fan on my A64 3500 is deeper than the whole iMac!
And its the form factor that makes me want an iMac soooooo bad....
Whistleway said:
Because the only alternative at the moment is the Pentium D, which would melt the iMac and set fire to your house.
hadlock said:
64-bit just for the sake of being 64-bit doesn't make it faster. It can actually be slower.
A few relevant points:ChrisA said:
- Conroe will hardly get slower and it will be released at even higher frequencies than 2.66GHz
- Opteron and Athlon64 are identical. Where does all these fantasies about Opteron being something special come from? There is no Opteron that beats the Athlon64 FX-60. There are however Opterons that perform the same and those are the 185, 285 and 885.
The test therefore compares AMD's absolutely fastest CPU, overclocked, to an upcoming Intel CPU in the middle of the field. Sure AMD will have a faster CPU by then, but it's just going to be the 2.8GHz FX-62 and the test just showed us how that might turn out for AMD...
I hope you're being sarcastic. AMD's answer to Conroe seems to be scheduled for a mid 2007 launch. This includes an all new mobile architecture.BRLawyer said:
Well, AMD's only response to Conroe at launch will be the rev F CPUs. These are said to be 5-10% faster than current rev E CPUs at most. Also, Conroe will hardly become slower as the launch date draws closer. Not that it's likely to get much faster either.Evangelion said:
Agreed. It's hard to be impressed by a chip that seriously beats the G5 clock for clock, while reaching much higher frequencies. Garbage is what it is.backdraft said:
Mikael said:
No they are not. They are built on different tolerances, Opterons support registered RAM and the 2xx and 8xx-series have additional HyperTransport-links. The difference between 1xx-series and A64 is a bit vague though.
What makes you think the Conroe we saw was "Middle of the field"? It was propably the fastest Conroe Intel could come up with at this point. There might be faster Conroes available at launch, but there will propably be faster-running A64's available as well. Instead of doing relatively modest 200Mhz clock-speed increases, AMD could bumb the clock-speeds up by a considerable amount.
Well, AMD will be having new socket with improved mem-bandwidth (double the bandwidth). And I have heard that there are revisions in the works that have additional FP-unit and more cache than the current CPU's do.
BRLawyer said:
I wonder if people are forgetting AMD's history. Back in the early 90s a number of companies started making X86 clones. AMD, Cyrix, IBM, TransMeta, and a few others I am forgetting.
AMD is the only survivor, but they have an up-and-down history versus Intel. Several times they have been on the brink and manage to save themselves by one-upping Intel. My first AMD was a K6-2 laptop. Then they were almost crushed under the Pentium 4 express only to come back with the Athlon. Once again they were pushed to the edge and came up with their 64-bit chips.
However, I agree that they are in trouble. There are only so many times they can have their backs to the wall and pull a rabbit out of their hats, to mix metaphors.
Good stuff, for Apple.
Not so good for AMD, although inertia in the marketplace, and possibly sensible pricing, will keep them safe for a while after these Intel chips launch, maybe until they get K8L out of the door in 2007.
Also high-speed dual-core benchmarks with memory intensive applications are going to choke on the old dual-channel DDR400 memory controllers on S939. The move to DDR2 in Socket AM2 will help those applications a lot.
But Conroe will probably still be faster than the fastest AMD processor.
I think AMD got complacent and expected another Intel farce.
Not so good for AMD, although inertia in the marketplace, and possibly sensible pricing, will keep them safe for a while after these Intel chips launch, maybe until they get K8L out of the door in 2007.
Also high-speed dual-core benchmarks with memory intensive applications are going to choke on the old dual-channel DDR400 memory controllers on S939. The move to DDR2 in Socket AM2 will help those applications a lot.
But Conroe will probably still be faster than the fastest AMD processor.
I think AMD got complacent and expected another Intel farce.
janstett said:
Huh? After K6-2 AMD introduced K6-III and Athlon. Athlon competed in the beginning mostly against Pentium III, not Pentium 4 (what is P4 Express BTW?). And Intel had serious problems competing with the Athlon, even with the P4 (which sucked in the beginning). Wikipedia sez that Athlon was the fastest x86-CPU from august 1999 to january 2002. And even after that, Athlon was competetive, although not necessarily the fastest. And in April 2003, AMD introduced the Opteron.
Well, as things are right now, AMD has never been better. Their sales are going up, their market-share is going up (in all segments, servers, laptops and desktops), they have solid technology and roadmap, superior multicore-tech when compared to Intel and they have the best interconnect-tech in the industry. What might be happening now is that instead of seeing AMD humiliate Intel in just about every benchmark since the launch of the Opteron, things are getting more equal. I wouldn't say that Intel getting more competetive with AMD means that AMD is doomed. AMD has just been doing exceptionally well for the past several years.
jabooth said:You know what nataku?
...You're right.
I'm just waiting untill April 1st just to check the MacBook isn't anything to change my mind, then I'll make a purchase. Thanks again mate
Glad to help
Mikael said:
Hejsan, Mikael, hur är det?
Nope, I am not being sarcastic...you may have been fooled by the apparently "bad" results by Intel for this last quarter, or by AMD's marketshare increase in the server market...the fact of the matter is: when AMD launches its "answer" to Conroe and the other Intel chips it's gonna be already too late for them...
Right now AMD is making some money exactly because of this performance/watt gap that Intel has...unfortunately for AMD, the gap is closing sooner than they had realized...therefore, AMD will NOT have the same performance advantage by 2007, let alone the market power...trust me, AMD is going the way of the dodo in no time...and its previous balance sheets show that the company is not really a shining star in the business either...
depends
The only risks to the 32-bit system are:
A 32-bit MacIntel will probably be good for 18 months or so before the second situation occurs - so ask yourself if about $100/month for a computer is OK. If yes, then buy it and any resale value is simply a bonus.
If you can wait half a year, wait. If you need a faster Apple now, buy it.jabooth said:Hmmm... is it worth waiting out for a Merom iMac? Personally, I don't think the 20% performance increase warrants a wait of 6 months, although waiting for a 64-bit chip could be very beneficial...
I'm obviously talking here of people who are planning on buying an iMac now, yet have seen Conroe/Merom could be out in half a year...
The only risks to the 32-bit system are:
- Resale value of the 32-bit systems will fall much faster than has been traditional for PPC Apples, so if you plan to eBay the Yonah to get a Merom you might get sticker shock
- Sooner or later there will be some application or device or O/S (Leopard + 1?) that has something that is only available with a 64-bit CPU.
A 32-bit MacIntel will probably be good for 18 months or so before the second situation occurs - so ask yourself if about $100/month for a computer is OK. If yes, then buy it and any resale value is simply a bonus.
That's something you've made up yourself. AMD may choose to use the best chips from each wafer for Opteron products, but so far I've seen zero evidence that they're manufactured on separate lines.Evangelion said:
Those are features that are most likely enabled and disabled after manufacturing of the chips.Evangelion said:
What I was trying to say is that Opteron and Athlon64 are identical from an architechtural standpoint. Sure, there might be a few "shallow" differences in features depending on what market they're aimed at, but check under the hood and the architecture is the same.
The real point of the response was however to explain that there are no performance differences between Opteron and Athlon64. The registered memory for the S940 platform might slow down those Opterons a percent or so, so Opteron certainly isn't any faster.
I just hate this kind of hairsplitting...
Well, unless something goes terribly wrong, Intel is set to release Conroe CPUs at 2.93GHz and probably an even faster EE edition at launch. AMD might have something faster by then, but there are a few things speaking against that. First of all they will have just released their 2.8GHz FX-62 CPU. Second, 3GHz will certainly be pushing it on their 90nm process. It was my understanding that Conroe was supposed to be launched this summer, which puts it very close to AMD's AM2 launch and the FX-62.Evangelion said:
Exactly how do you think AMD would be able to increase clock frequency that much on their 90nm process? If these initial performance tests prove to be true, then AMD will need a 3.4GHz X2 just to match the 2.66GHz Conroe and that's certainly not something AMD could accomplish on 90nm.
Yes, I already mentioned AMD's next-gen/updated CPUs in my last post. As I said in that post, they will not be here when Conroe arrives. They will probably not surface until H2 2007, which gives Intel a good amount of time to reign supreme. I also mentioned the new rev F CPUs in my last post. Yes, they will have more bandwidth, but even AMD told us to expect at most a 10% increase in performance. This is likely to be in very memory intensive applications. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of core enhancements in rev F, so computational performance in non memory intensive apps looks to remain very similar.Evangelion said:
Hej på dig! Det är bara bra.BRLawyer said:
No, I'm not drawing any conclusions based on recent market share improvements. I'm just curious as to how anyone can think that a 37 year old company is going to lay down and die, simply because of a normal shift in performance leadership based on a new product generation. This is how it's always been and I honestly fail to see how it's all that different this time.BRLawyer said:
Mikael said:
Um, no, I didn't
No, they are not made on separate lines, and I never claimed anything of the sort. They do have different packaging, IIRC (ceramic vs. organic).
So? Fact remains that that is a feature that Opterons have, while A64 do not have.
No **** Sherlock! I heard that Xeon and P4 are also 98% identical! And in any case, your claim that "Opteron and A64 are identical" is plain FALSE.
And if you need registered RAM, that difference does not matter. And if you need multi-CPU system, A64 does not cut it.
You know that for a fact?
Conroe should be launched this summer, whereas AM2 should be out in Q2. So that propably means that AM2 will be here first. The new socket/RAM propably gives around 10% speed-increase, and AMD could get another 10-15% from tweaking the core. Add to that increased clock-speeds (lets say 200-400Mhz), and you have a solid competitor right there. Even if the disregard any tweaks to the core, it would still be competetive. It wouldn't wipe the floor with Intel like it does today though.
And let's not forget that we have so far seen exactly ONE benchmark of Conroe, and it was supplied by Intel.
And that's a mighty big "if".... They tested systems that were provided by Intel. The apps they benchmarked were provided by Intel. I would take those benchmarks with huge grain of salt.
I already said that I meant that the cores are the same and that both cores perform identical. We are talking about different things. I understand that, why don't you? Yes, I may have been a bit "fuzzy" with the details in my initial post, but the point still holds: Opteron doesn't perform better than Athlon64. Can't we just leave it at that?Evangelion said:
BTW, I thought that all Opterons and Athlon64 were in organic packages these days. I know that the first Opterons were in cermaic packages, though. My bad if I was wrong about this.
What part? That Intel has a 2.93GHz Conroe planned for launch? Well, that's what I've seen on roadmaps posted.Evangelion said:
Or did you mean that 3GHz would be pushing it? 3GHz could certainly be possible (although hot running), but the important part is that far more than 3GHz may be required.
Unless AMD is holding some information back regarding rev F, there will not be a 10-15% increase in performance because of core enhancements. They said that rev F/AM2 would bring up to 10% increased performance, that's it.Evangelion said:
Current rev F samples also seem to lack any core enhancements and those should be in place this close to launch. Everything at the moment points towards the extra bandwidth providing the extra performance. That means that many apps won't see a speed-up at all.
Yes, I know. This whole discussion is based on the assumption that the benchmarks are somewhat correct.Evangelion said:
As I said, I'm assuming that they're correct for this discussion. If they aren't, then congrats to AMD. The real difference might very well prove much smaller when we get some actual reviews.Evangelion said:
EDIT: And don't get me wrong. I have used AMD chips the past six years and been very happy with them. I want AMD to continue to be strong, but at the same time I don't want the stagnant CPU market we've seen the past few years. Best for everybody (well, except maybe for Intel) would be if Conroe turns out excellent, but AMD manages to get out a very competitive chip very fast to counter Conroe.
Thank you. You manage to keep it civil, in the face of such comments. I love it when the arguing people save it so it doesn't escalate.Mikael said:
I think some intriguing questions are:AidenShaw said:
1. Does Yonah already have 64-bit extensions? Someone raised this earlier, but I haven't seen a clear yes or no.
2. The new Mac mini and iMac have socketed (not soldered) CPUs. It's already been demonstrated that the processors can be replaced in the field. What is not clear, however, is whether we'll be able to replace Yonah with its pin-for-pin compatible successor, Merom, without needing to replace the chipset.
If (2) is doable, then (1) is a moot point. Just buy an Intel iMac or Mac mini today and replace the processor at the end of the year when retail prices are reduced.
If option 2 was available, that would be perfect!
Still, do people genuinely think you could find 64bit exclusive software in just 18 months?
As I understood it, 64bit excels in some areas, yet is pointless (and possibly even slower) in others. Is this correct? If so, why would companies limit market by making software 64 bit exclusive?
Is their anyone who has a good understanding of 64bit who can give us all a good lesson into its +/- and how soon it will be implemented in software?
Cheers
Still, do people genuinely think you could find 64bit exclusive software in just 18 months?
As I understood it, 64bit excels in some areas, yet is pointless (and possibly even slower) in others. Is this correct? If so, why would companies limit market by making software 64 bit exclusive?
Is their anyone who has a good understanding of 64bit who can give us all a good lesson into its +/- and how soon it will be implemented in software?
Cheers
Mikael said:
Let's just say this:
Intel has a long history of paper launches (P4 EE and P3 1.x Ghz), so if they get it out in time, expect long lines to get one. And don't think Apple will get them before anyone else. Do you really think Intel is going to PO Dell and HP, who make up almost half of the PC market by giving Apple a heads up on their fastest chips?
Or they could increase the cache or do some other tweaks to get the CPU to where it needs to be.
Look at it this way:
This is Intel saying our future chips will be faster than our competitor's current chips. Well, DUH, of couse they will be faster. Intel isn't going to release another chip like the P4 where it is noticeably slower than anything else on the market.
So, if Intel is claiming 20% speed increase (didn't look like that in Anand's tests, but I didn't bring out the calculator) than AMD's current chips, and AMD's new chips will be 10% faster, the gap is only 10%. IOW, you won't notice it.
And a 36 year old company won't either. AMD is not some newcomer to the game. They have been around just as long as Intel and have a product portfolio that is almost as large. They have even produced CPU's for Intel when they could not meet demand (8088, 286 and 386, IIRC).
You also fail to explain away the increased sales AMD has been having for a long time now. People with new computers are not going to go out and buy a new computer this year because it's 10% faster than what they have. They'll buy a new one in 2-3 years.
We'll have to wait and see what AMD comes up with. I have a feeling it will be very competitive. Maybe not the fastest - it's about time Intel has something worth buying, but AMD is not going anywhere.
I just wish Apple would not have went the Intel route.... Doesn't make sense from so many angles.
But OSx86 won't load on an Opteron, and Apple is very unlikely to make that possible (TPM, for example).ChrisA said:
So does HP, and several other vendors. Sun is one of the least interesting AMD vendors - they're focussed on trying to get the mob of people abandoning SPARC to chose Sun's Intel architecture machines instead of any others.ChrisA said:
Sun is also on very dangerous ground with their hyping of the power consumption advantages of the Sun boxes. Not only are they basically dishonest, but dual-core Xeons and new architecture chips turn the tables on them.
Look closer at the news from IDF...ChrisA said: