And also, i'm sure this has been answered before, but just wandering, why is the MBP with C2D taking comparitively long to launch, compared to, well, everyone else (dell,hp etc) - people are saying because of the limited supply, but the other compaines seem to be doing allright - surely aren't apple intel's fav people at the mo and be on 'priority'....?
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.
Official Merom (Core 2 Duo) Launch on Monday?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe leave one MBP with Core Duo?
Whenever the MBPs get Merom, I hope Apple upgrade just the two higher spec MBPs. Perhaps leaving the lower spec 15.4" MBP with Core Duo could allow Apple to lower its price to the consumer range? (Below £1,000 in UK).
I know a few gamers who would love Apple to release a consumer 15.4" laptop, with dedicated graphics. This could offer an ideal solution.
Whenever the MBPs get Merom, I hope Apple upgrade just the two higher spec MBPs. Perhaps leaving the lower spec 15.4" MBP with Core Duo could allow Apple to lower its price to the consumer range? (Below £1,000 in UK).
I know a few gamers who would love Apple to release a consumer 15.4" laptop, with dedicated graphics. This could offer an ideal solution.
generik said:
There is discussion about that article on this thread.
The general consensus, at least at this point, is that the article is not reliable.
I want to respond to your note about "reliable" without pulling the discussion from that thread into this thread. I see two questions. First: Is there a shortage of Merom chips. That sounds reasonable. Second: Will that shortage affect the introduction of Merom MacBooks/Pros if limited Meroms are being diverted to iMacs. That also sounds reasonable. I'm going to duplicate this post on that thread so that any responses can appropriately be put there.Andrew F said:
DavidCar said:
I thought Conroe were being used in the iMac's and Merom's in the Mac Mini (soon to be Mac Mini's).
blackmint said:
Check the FSB for conroe and merom and you'll realize it's merom in the iMacs. Apple's just trying to sell more machines with that 50% talk.
blackmint said:
While it's not impossible that it is Conroe, I have my doubts.
The 50% faster thang is easily explained. Quite a few SSE instructions took 2 cycles to complete on Yonah. All SSE is single-cycle on Core 2 processors.
Regardless, Core 2 is all the same arch. At the same clockspeeds, Merom and Conroe are practicailly identical in speed -- the only real difference is the FSB speed.
ergle2 said:
I've got to say, isn't this a real problem with the "Core 2 Duo" naming scheme, or at least the concept of using a mobile Core 2 Duo in a desktop machine?
It seems like it is very easy for someone to buy an iMac and assume that the Core 2 Duo Apple is advertising is the same sort of thing that they would get in any other PC desktop that also says it has a "Core 2 Duo".
Either way it seems like a problem with duplicate naming. Especially if people do feel misled that they bought a desktop with a processor that actually wasn't the same as the desktop Core 2 Duo processors that the iMac's competitors have.
-Zadillo
Comm'on. Can we stop talking about that silly Inquire article? It's one of the most ridiculous rumors I've heard in a while. So Apple is gonna be 4-5 months behind every other PC makers in releasing Merom lappies? And Apple is gonna funnel the more expensive Meroms into the iMacs while the higher-margin and higher-priced MBPs are staying with Yonahs??? Makes absolutely zero sense.generik said:
Zadillo said:
I don't think so, given it's the same arch -- there's no substantial speed difference between Merom and Conroe at the same clockspeed. Conroe's advantage to the user is that it's available at much higher clockspeeds -- it uses higher voltages. (And, of course, Conroe is cheaper).
The FSB speed won't make much different to most apps. Check out an xtremesystems comparison where the processors were both heavily overclocked, which should favour Conroe as the chances of starvation are much higher.
Sorry for the hassle. but I don't think my question got answered the first time I posted it, so I'm going to ask again.
Does anyone know if the free nano promotion is valid up to AND INCLUDING the 16th (meaning till 11:59 pm)? or is it just until the end of the 15th?
Much thanks.
Does anyone know if the free nano promotion is valid up to AND INCLUDING the 16th (meaning till 11:59 pm)? or is it just until the end of the 15th?
Much thanks.
Nuks said:
You shouldn't post off-topic questions in existing threads.
However, according to the faq, it's "through" the 16th, which implies to the end of the day of the 16th. IANAL tho.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debating.
Although YANAL, your answer makes sense, and seems right, so I will go with it.
Thanks, and yes, please return to the discussion.
I seriously hope Tuesday is the day for macbooks. I have been putting off, and putting off my purchase, and friday is the latest I can wait!
Thanks, and yes, please return to the discussion.
I seriously hope Tuesday is the day for macbooks. I have been putting off, and putting off my purchase, and friday is the latest I can wait!
blackmint said:
HAHA, if you're trying to make an arugement based of of manufacturers promised speed increases... don't even try it. It's Merom.. PERIOD, get off of it people.
Nuks said:
If you are waiting for the update to take advantage of the free iPod deal, do not even bother.
Once a refresh happens for a line, Apple will simply update the list of eligible products, and presto! No more free iPod for you!
You can't get the cake and eat it too, so accept that and make your decision accordingly.
ckeck said:
The assumption you're making is actually a common misconception about speed. Clock frequency across architectures are never suitable to compare. What is done in one clock cycle very often varies significantly from architecture to architecture. The clock game is one that Intel and AMD have played forever to get people to upgrade, but it is only an accurate comparison within a given architecture.
When RISC architectures were still the rage, people were often impressed by the fast clock speeds they could attain. What people didn't understand is that little more than an addition or multiplication could be done in one cycle. Much more complicated instructions are typically done by CISC CPUs, which is how I would classify most modern general purpose CPU's. Even among CISC CPU's, architectures accomplish things very differently across different architectures, and so clock speed will not really tell you a whole lot about tangible performance gain.