The current quad cores are still using M. Which was the authors original question.
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.
Next Generation Intel Platform (Santa Rosa) Tracking For May
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The current quad cores are still using M. Which was the authors original question.
Will I regret not holding out?
I need a portable video authoring system and have been holding out on purchasing a maxed out MBP ever since the rumors started flying around. Some of those rumors had the new MBP's coming out in March/April. Obviously that's not going to happen (and I really can't hold out any longer than that). Will there be a substantial performance improvement with using Final Cut Pro on the next generation Santa Rosa MBPs? Does FCP run well on the current MBPs? I will have a more robust setup when I'm not on the road (30" Cinema Display, 650GB Lacie HD, etc.).
Dan
I need a portable video authoring system and have been holding out on purchasing a maxed out MBP ever since the rumors started flying around. Some of those rumors had the new MBP's coming out in March/April. Obviously that's not going to happen (and I really can't hold out any longer than that). Will there be a substantial performance improvement with using Final Cut Pro on the next generation Santa Rosa MBPs? Does FCP run well on the current MBPs? I will have a more robust setup when I'm not on the road (30" Cinema Display, 650GB Lacie HD, etc.).
Dan
Which quad cores?
Socket T (LGA 775) is for Kentsfield and Socket J (LGA 771) for Clovertown.
i think we'll see the SR upgrade as soon as it's available..the original release of SR was due out in April, so this topic is saying that it'll be pushed back a month...also there are rumors that penryn will be released sooner as well (opposed to the end of 2007 or early 2008) those are 2 updates for '07..also i thought the point of switching to intel would make it possible for more frequent updates?
It would make the updates possible yes, not required. Apple switched to Intel due to IBM's inability to produce a good high-speed low-power/temp processor for a laptop, going to Intel gives them that chip and a good roadmap after that for both desktops and laptops. But as long as Apple is the only maker of Macs, there's no reason they have to upgrade if they don't want to.
They may be using the same technology as everyone else, but since you still can't go to another computer company and get a Mac if Apple's dragging their heels on getting the latest Intel chipset into a shipping product, it doesn't matter.
considering that macs are being sold next to other pc's at circuit city and best buy, i'd say they hafta stay on top of the game, wouldn't you?
1. I did mention that you can run 64-bit programs. You just can't use the addressing over 4 GB with the current i945 chipset.
2. Scientific programs mostly benefit since you can address data to memory Vs. using virtual memory.
3. 64-bit addressing is only called as necessary if you code the program correctly it'll stick with 32-bit. Apple addressed this at WWDC2006. It was a good session.
1. I thought you wrote that he couldn't benefit from 64bit-ness because his computer was unable to use more than 3GB of RAM. This statement is not true, as calculations on 64bit numbers will be performed substantially faster than if it were a 32bit machine, and therefore get a speed improvement. But may be I simply missunderstood you, and if so, I'm sorry
2. I would think it depends on the scientific problem. Some problems actually require small data sets, but many computations on 64bit numbers. But I am no scientist, and I don't know what type of problem is more prevalent in the scientific world
3. That I didn't know, and I agree it's neat. By programming it correctly, I assume you mean sticking to 32bit numbers?
That's fine. Even if you can't address more then 4 GB of RAM, certain computations will run faster.1. I thought you wrote that he couldn't benefit from 64bit-ness because his computer was unable to use more than 3GB of RAM. This statement is not true, as calculations on 64bit numbers will be performed substantially faster than if it were a 32bit machine, and therefore get a speed improvement. But may be I simply missunderstood you, and if so, I'm sorry
Large data sets of course.
It is neat! Just a nifty if statement and you won't address beyond what you need.
If you sign up for a free ADC account you can view the ADC on iTunes video sessions.
Well yes and no. The IMac is now at 2.16 GHz with the Built to order option 2.33 GHz. I think where the speed bump comes is, with the 800 MHz front side bus and other design features. How ever, and I hope some one can comment on this. Why does Apple use a Laptop motherboard in a Desktop in the first place? Is it heat? I was lead to believe that the G5 was much hotter then the Core2Duo, and it was used in the IMac. Is it price? More cost effective to use one type of motherboard.
Not if you're trying to run hundreds of dollars in Macintosh apps. By that logic someone with a buttload of PS3 games might buy an XBox 360 if they had a hardware failure with their Sony deck.
This is exactly one of the things that keeps people away from the Mac. Why do we keep seeing people asking for a small, expandable tower Mac? Something smaller than a Mac Pro, closer in price to a MacBook but with an upgradeable graphics card and PCI slot or two at most? Because Apple has their customers locked into their own hardware line, but some people want a machine like that and one doesn't exist. People like choice and competition and that's not something they get when there's only one company to "choose" from. That applies to all industries.
What incentive does Apple have to be quick about turning out new models based on new technologies, having to go through hardware design and testing, software tweaking, etc when they have no one really to compete with for Mac users' dollars? They can roll out their designs when they please and as long as the performance gap between the people making Wintels who are using the newer Santa Rosa base and Apple isn't big enough to get customers to invest the time and money in switching platforms, they're fine.
The Mini already plays 1080p just fine. Or, at least, it does running Windows MCE as my HTPC. OS X is slower, but I don't think it's _that_ much slower, especially when all it's doing is displaying video.
The biggest influence on playing HD is CPU power, not video card. The Mini makes an excellent HTPC (at least running Windows MCE).
I have to agree with your sentiment about the 'iTV' though - I think Apple has badly misjudged there (even with the 720p limitation).
A couple of questions that hopefully will answer a lot of the questions for people less familiar with some of the technology being discussed here.
1. What is the difference between a chipset and CPU; what do each of these independently improve, i.e., speed, graphics, etc?
2. So it sounds like Santa Rosa is more about improving certain graphics related issues and whatever is improved upon with increased front bus speed?
3. I guess I thought Santa Rosa was supposed to be a major breakthrough (I recognize that it is for the people talking about the gaming graphics) but it isn't sounding all that amazing in terms of big speed changes like we saw a year ago. If that is what I am interested in, and it is, then am I waiting more for Nehalem microarchitecture and not these changes associated with Santa Rosa?
4. I recall several articles on here discussing incorporation of LED backlit screens, yet no mention here?
5. This quote below makes absolutely no sense to me. MacWorld is in Jan., maybe they mean WWDC? And while on the topic of the strange calendar this person seems to have, if the idea is to get the kids ready for fall semester how could the release be in the fall when the kids are already in school? Aren't most back to school sales Aug/Sept. in the last month before school starts, least time I check this was still considered summer.
1. What is the difference between a chipset and CPU; what do each of these independently improve, i.e., speed, graphics, etc?
2. So it sounds like Santa Rosa is more about improving certain graphics related issues and whatever is improved upon with increased front bus speed?
3. I guess I thought Santa Rosa was supposed to be a major breakthrough (I recognize that it is for the people talking about the gaming graphics) but it isn't sounding all that amazing in terms of big speed changes like we saw a year ago. If that is what I am interested in, and it is, then am I waiting more for Nehalem microarchitecture and not these changes associated with Santa Rosa?
4. I recall several articles on here discussing incorporation of LED backlit screens, yet no mention here?
5. This quote below makes absolutely no sense to me. MacWorld is in Jan., maybe they mean WWDC? And while on the topic of the strange calendar this person seems to have, if the idea is to get the kids ready for fall semester how could the release be in the fall when the kids are already in school? Aren't most back to school sales Aug/Sept. in the last month before school starts, least time I check this was still considered summer.
I wouldn't put it like this.
The chipset and its associated CPU should be thought more of as a single component rather than discrete parts. One cannot work without the other.
Um, that's 67MHz, not 0.7MHz. And it has faster bus. Maybe faster RAM. And it has host of other features. So that 70Mhz can actually take you quite a long way. And it's not like the Core Duo's are slow the way they are.
I wonder why they don't put more memory-slots in laptop? MacBook Pro's could have four slots, whereas MacBooks would have two.
Leopard does not, nor will it, require Shader 3.0. Most Apple users do not have an appropriate graphics card to do so. It may well be relevant to 10.6 or 10.7, but probably still will not be required, just as Shader 2.0 isn't absolutely required now.
Not at all. The chipset and CPU are quite distinct from each other; a single chipset can support several generations of vastly different CPUs. The venerable Intel 945, for example, supports Pentium 4, Pentium D, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Extreme CPUs (as well as Celeron derivatives). Thinking of them as a single unit places unnecessary and inappropriate limits on the technology.
In short, the chipset supports the operation of the system as a whole. It contains all the limiting logic of the motherboard--what memory types and speeds are supported, the socket/FSB/model of CPU supported, and it packages the onboard ethernet, sound, video, and wireless as applicable to the current platform. In most respects, the chipset is the logic board in the traditional Apple sense (i.e. it is "the" computer, minus the RAM and CPU [and graphics card, for systems without onboard graphics).
The CPU on the other hand is just the part that does the calculations. It is responsible for the major performance of software (apart from graphics). The chipset plays an important, but less dramatic role in speed and performance. The chipset has become the key limiting factor in the modern age--the onboard graphics can't be upgraded; you can't break the limits imposed on the type and quantity of RAM; you can only upgrade CPUs to the maximum supported by the chipset. Exceeding any of these limits requires a new computer.
I wouldn't say that Santa Rosa's major contribution is in the area of graphics. It is certainly the most visible and directly applicable improvement for end-users, but it is the next major step in the comprehensive overhaul of the x86 architecture as we know it. We aren't going to be seeing any massive speed changes like we experienced five years ago; the technology we have is mature and improvements will be incremental barring any major breakthroughs.
This is why we're having multiple cores pushed onto us--it's a way of extending Moore's Law while the semiconductor industry has essentially stalled. In its defense, home users rarely need even as much power as available to them now. There's not really any new necessity to push home user markets forward.
Updates usually do happen after the "back to school" sales have depleted inventory. This is advantageous for everyone--students get good deals and push out extra inventory allowing for the faster shipment of updated models. Students simply don't need the absolute newest and cutting edge to ship before school starts; in the traditional marketing sense, they're budget-oriented shoppers distracted by shiny objects. Any unusual student seeking the best and newest would schedule updates around the end of the first semester to capitalize on the typical release schedule; those students aren't first time computer owners.
Except that it is 2007 now, and the importance of hardware vertex shading is much less now than it was six years ago. Decent quality lighting is done in the pixelshader anyway, and not in the vertexshader which can only supply interpolated values.
Today, yes.
Many are looking to buy a laptop that will still be "top-of-the-line" in a few years. It's all about future-proofing and upgradability.
Today, yes.
Many are looking to buy a laptop that will still be "top-of-the-line" in a few years. It's all about future-proofing and upgradability.
I agree, but not quite with the characterization that anyone would expect a 3 year old laptop to remain "top-of-the-line".
I think that people buy the latest/greatest in the hope that it would remain close enough to top-of-the-line for several years that there's no real point to upgrading. That's the real future-proofing IMO, and the real value in spending extra for a high-end system.
For example, I have a 3.5 year old Pentium M laptop - top-of-line when I bought it. (1.7 GHz/2GiB/Radeon discreet)
It's still my main laptop. For most tasks, it's not enough slower than my 2.33 GHz Merom to worry about. (For video editing, or a big Photoshop session, the Merom comes out though.)
For some things, however, the old system is completely obsolete (won't run 64-bit software, 2 GiB memory limit, ...) Those things, however, aren't yet important enough to put the Pentium M out to pasture.
Santa Rosa looks like a big enough leap that it will be high-end for quite some time - Robson and DX10 are new features that will become more important over time.
yeah i agree here. i believe this is why most people try to spend more now, so it will last, but clearly won't be the top-of-the-line for 3 years.
Well, according to X3000 specifications it has VC-1 video acceleration. I guess that would relieve the CPU while playing HD-DVD and Bluray a lot.
Anyways, the reason i waited to buy a mac mini was that it could play 1080p material flawlessly and i could play Civ IV on it. I can't wait for June
mini.the logic is perfect with the mac, because they can run windows for those apps they can't live withoutor that don't work on os x...and you're basically saying that apple should forget about the mac and not update when new products are available, when macs are being directly compared to pc's now, you can look at them both side by side, this is hardware that people now understand and can relate to (because they've been using it with their windows machine)...also there is a lot of buzz around the SR platform and apple holding out would make them look bad, just as people wanting a mid-range tower...more choices in the apple line means more sells/more switchers...also there will be a lot of leopard hype, who wants a fresh OS with last years technology?