When will a significant upgrade roll out?

[dingdongbubble]

Its been quite some time since the Core Duo processor was released. Then the Core 2 Duo came out which brought about decent increases in performances ranging from ~10-30% if I am not wrong. Then recently Santa Rosa rolled out bringing about slight performance increases. The Core Duo was releases in January 2005 and now it is August 2007. Most probably we will see new processors in January next year too. So since two years we have seen a modest increase in processor performances, nothing too great.

Will Intel's Penryn bring about something similar? So that if I buy a Penryn computer, after say 2 years I will still feel happy about my computers performance? I mean I wouldnt mind buying a Core Duo even today. The Core Duo was a significant upgrade over the Pentium line up. So do you expect Penryn to be a significant upgrade over Core 2 Duo?

 

[zap2]

Not sure, but the CD was never meant to last too long, it wasn't even 64bit, so I don't think Intel planned to use it for a long time, just to start the move to Core based chips

 

[OldCorpse]

Actually, your question has a very definite answer. Penryn is NOT where it's at - that's merely a refinement of the current architecture... in other words - meh. It's what's coming after that's the real leap... so it's Nehalem where it's at.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/29/more-dirt-on-intels-penryn-nehalem-architecture/

"As expected, there isn't much new on the oft detailed Penryn front, but the fresher Nehalem most certainly piqued our interest; while built on the same 45-nanometer technology as its predecessor, Nehalem is being hailed as "the most dramatic architecture shift since the introduction of the front-side bus in the Pentium Pro in 1996."

Personally, I'm still on PPC. I have the latest iBook and I just bought the latest PPC mac mini (1.5GHz). I'm staying away from Intel macs - they are still not as stable as the PPC. However, one day they will be - and at that point I'll buy. Timing-wise, I think that will coincide with the Nehalem chips - a worthy leap forward in performance, combined with some Apple experience with Intel chips - perfect timing. That means late 2008, or sometime in 2009. I think my PPC machines will adequately serve my needs for another 1 year or 18 months until Nehalem

 

[dingdongbubble]

So by the time Nahalem rolls out, we should see quad core Macbooks? And it will also be a significant upgrade where the owner wont feel like his machine is lagging behind the latest for 2-2.5 years just like with the Core Duo?

 

[OldCorpse]

So by the time Nahalem rolls out, we should see quad core Macbooks? And it will also be a significant upgrade where the owner wont feel like his machine is lagging behind the latest for 2-2.5 years just like with the Core Duo?

It will definitely be a significant upgrade and the owner won't be able to feel like his machine is laggin... since there won't be anything better on the market. Plus, it's great for laptops, because one of the key features of Nehalem will be the huge energy efficiency leap - so it'll run a lot cooler. As to quad core - remember, Macbooks are consumer, while the Macbook Pros are the top of the line, so you'll always see the best technology in the Pros first.

 

[JD92]

Its been quite some time since the Core Duo processor was released. Then the Core 2 Duo came out which brought about decent increases in performances ranging from ~10-30% if I am not wrong. Then recently Santa Rosa rolled out bringing about slight performance increases. The Core Duo was releases in January 2005 and now it is August 2007. Most probably we will see new processors in January next year too. So since two years we have seen a modest increase in processor performances, nothing too great

Actually Core wasn't really totally new for Intel, it was still based on one of the older Pentium Ms, it was the Core 2 Duo that brought the real, full architecture change afaik.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

After 2 years you will definitely still be happy.
I'm on a 2 year old G4 iBook and this is still satisfaction for me.

 

[dingdongbubble]

Even if the C2D was the real thing, the speed increases were not significant. As for the G4 iBook, dont you think it is slow compared to the Intels?

 

[flopticalcube]

Unfortunetaly, the G4s were not a huge step up from the G3s and the G5s were just too power hungry for laptops. Core architecture is just about the same as Pentium M but its a whole lot faster than Pentium 4 at the same clock speed. I think the leap from P4 to Core was quite a jump for Intel and since the only thing Apple had at the time for laptops was G4, it was an even bigger leap for them. Quad cores won't make many tasks much faster as some things are just not capable of running in parallel.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

I think the G4's were a big jump between the G3's. Perhaps not the G5's regarding efficiency. The G3's ended their run at 450 mHz, where the G4's were all the way to 1.5 gHz (maybe higher)?

Yes, the Intels are faster than the PPC chips, but in the relative sense I am running 10.4 with Office, MatLab, other basic apps in a native PPC code so no significant bottlenecks. The only hiccups are from Adobe stuff, but I don't use that too much.

My overall point is that this computer is working great still (as is my MiniG4) and I don't find myself complaining about any wait times. I think a big factor is my maxed out RAM on both of my G4's.

 

[flopticalcube]

I direct your attention here. The G4 really just enabled higher clock speeds, whereas the Core improved performance at the same clock speed. The OP wants to know if the current generation will still be OK in 2 years and on that, I say the biggest jump was the switch to Intel itself.

 

[Eric5h5]

I think the G4's were a big jump between the G3's. Perhaps not the G5's regarding efficiency. The G3's ended their run at 450 mHz, where the G4's were all the way to 1.5 gHz (maybe higher)?

The G3s went to at least 600MHz (I know, I have one). The G4s were, in fact, quite a substantial leap over the G3s because they had vector processing (Altivec). This makes some programs run far faster.

--Eric

 

[GimmeSlack12]

whereareas the Core improved performance at the same clock speed.

Very true. I think what that geek squad site didn't mention was that the G4 was co-existing with the G5, and I believe the extended use of the G4 was because the G5 couldn't get crammed into a notebook. All the while Apple was hashing out a new processor roadmap. That stuff takes time. Fortunetly everything is running pretty damn smooth at the moment.

To the OP, don't play the wait game. It'll just drive you nuts. Now is a good time to buy any Mac as everything has just refreshed. Go get one!