or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel expected to tout dual-core Xeon chips on Tuesday
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel expected to tout dual-core Xeon chips on Tuesday

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
Intel Corp., the world's leading microprocessor maker and new supplier of chips for Apple's Macintosh computer line, will take center stage at its own developer forum this week to talk about its latest technologies, which are expected to include a couple of new dual-core server chips.

The Intel Developer Forum will kick-off on Tuesday the 7th at the Moscone West in San Francisco, Calif. and run through the 10th. Justin Rattner, the company's chief technology officer, will host the opening keynote at 8:15 a.m. Three other company execs will follow with keynotes focused on digital enterprise, mobility, and the digital home, respectively.

Among its announcements, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company may debut a new 65-nanometer (nm) dual-core Xeon server processor code-named Dempsey, which is reportedly on track to begin shipping by the end of the first calendar quarter of the year. The chip will bridge the gap between now and the Fall, when Intel will ship Woodcrest -- its first server chip to truly address performance per Watt concerns and ideally give rival AMD's Opteron line a run for its money.

Dempsey -- which packs HyperThreading support, a 1066MHz front-side bus, and Demand Based Switching and Vanderpool Technology -- is expected to run at speeds between 2.5GHz and 3.46 GHz. The former is a rack-optomized variant at 95W dubbed Dempsey MV, while the latter is the performance version of the chip at 130W.

Intel may also unveil Sossaman, a 2.0GHz ultra-dense, low-power 32-bit server processor with 2MB of L2 cache. The chip, which consumes substantially less power at 31W, will likely replace the company's current Low Voltage and Ultra Low Voltage Xeon processors.

By early 2007, Intel will begin shipping its first processors with four cores, which will arrive first in the form another Xeon server chip dubbed "Clovertown." Therefore, it's also likely the company will use its developer forum to discuss its strategy for moving from dual-core chips to quad-core chips.

Intel may also offer additional details on its Viiv home entertainment platform and provide a glimpse at some future processors which have yet to surface on leaked company roadmaps.
post #2 of 49
And still no Opteron or G5 beater.

Woodcrest/Conroe better be good and on time.
post #3 of 49
These Xeon's are Netburst's last gasp. Goodbye and good riddance
post #4 of 49
Would seem unlikely to me that Apple introduces the Intel-Xserve in the next weeks, following Intel's announcement.
But perhaps the Xeon could go into Apple's PowerMac?

But it would make most sense to me if the iBook 12" + 14" / PowerBook 12" were the next lines to be transitioned, perhaps in mid-April. PowerMac and PowerBook 17" (maybe also the Xserve) could be next, perhaps at WWDC06.
post #5 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by mk14
Would seem unlikely to me that Apple introduces the Intel-Xserve in the next weeks, following Intel's announcement.
But perhaps the Xeon could go into Apple's PowerMac?

But it would make most sense to me if the iBook 12" + 14" / PowerBook 12" were the next lines to be transitioned, perhaps in mid-April. PowerMac and PowerBook 17" (maybe also the Xserve) could be next, perhaps at WWDC06.

The new Xeon is probably still slower than the top G5 and certainly hotter. The low power Xeon is slower than the chips in the MacBook Pro. Both are outrageously expensive.

If there's a PowerMac replacement at WWDC, it's not the Xeon.
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If there's a PowerMac replacement at WWDC, it's not the Xeon.

I'd be surprised if we see any sort of Intel PowerMac before the release of Photoshop that runs natively on Intel processors... or at least, I would expect that Apple would keep the G5 on until that time. That said, Apple probably isn't really focused on the PowerMacs (or at least they shouldn't be). Most of their sales come from the consumer-level iMac and the Powerbook-turned-MacBoook Pro...
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
post #7 of 49
Xserve still a ways off since 'Server' is not yet Universal (can't run on Intel chips). Getting Server ported will take some work. Don't think it's been the highest software priority in the past few months.

My guess:

iBook - April
WWDC - 10.5 Preview
PowerMac - September/October
XServe - very late 2006 or early 2007 (MacWorld?), maybe even held to 10.5

Gotta believe the duo/quad core chips are going to be toasters in the PM/XServes. I see 10+ GHz marketing claims coming with their introduction.
post #8 of 49
September sounds good for the PowerMac. They could bump the Power..er.. MacBook Pro to Merom at the same time.
post #9 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
These Xeon's are Netburst's last gasp. Goodbye and good riddance

Amen.

How do they get away with it when AMD is rox0ring their box0rz with such extreme prejudice?

Even for cheap and mid-range machines AMD is still better.. it's kind of sad.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #10 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Dirk
I'd be surprised if we see any sort of Intel PowerMac before the release of Photoshop that runs natively on Intel processors... or at least, I would expect that Apple would keep the G5 on until that time. That said, Apple probably isn't really focused on the PowerMacs (or at least they shouldn't be). Most of their sales come from the consumer-level iMac and the Powerbook-turned-MacBoook Pro...

Steve's committed to Intel across the board before the end of the year. Universal Photoshop won't be available until 2007.
post #11 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Dirk
I'd be surprised if we see any sort of Intel PowerMac before the release of Photoshop that runs natively on Intel processors... or at least, I would expect that Apple would keep the G5 on until that time. That said, Apple probably isn't really focused on the PowerMacs (or at least they shouldn't be). Most of their sales come from the consumer-level iMac and the Powerbook-turned-MacBoook Pro...

Well, Apple has said all lines will be Intel by the end of the year.

Adobe is sitting on their ass with Photoshop. Probably be January at bet before we see it.

Apple can transition all their lines to Intel faster than freakin Adbobe can do a universal binary of photoshop.

Sad.
post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
Well, Apple has said all lines will be Intel by the end of the year.

Adobe is sitting on their ass with Photoshop. Probably be January at bet before we see it.

Apple can transition all their lines to Intel faster than freakin Adbobe can do a universal binary of photoshop.

Sad.

Having done some very small scale programming and very small scale hardware design, I can understand why it is this way. The short answer is that advancing legacy software is harder than wiring together chips to the design specification.

Relatively speaking, I think it is a lot easier for Apple to switch architectures than it is for Adobe to go from (assumed) Codewarrior code base and code that partly dates back to MacOS 7 to Xcode & Universal Binary for presumably hundreds of thousands of lines of code, if not millions.

On Apple's side, parallel builds of the software has been maintained behind the scenes all along, so they've had a leg up in architecting the code properly for a potential transition. The hardware is relatively easy because all of the chips are already made for them, Intel did most of the work there, the enclosure is almost a given with minor tweaks, and circuit board work is more or less wiring which there are relatively easy tools to use to validate that the circuit design is to spec. On top of that, Apple has even farmed out the board layout work to Intel for at least some projects.
post #13 of 49
JeffDM, Maxon's Cinema 4D, which has been around since 1993, was made available as a Universal Binary for current version 9.5 customers free of charge on January 30th. That's a major 3D application that is as complex as Adobe's applications, if not much more so. There's no excuse for Adobe to not have their Universal Binaries ready, or close to it. Maintaining and cleaning up twenty years of old code is something they should constantly be doing, not just when it's deemed necessary by the arrival of a new Operating System or Hardware. It absolutely blows my mind that Adobe's going to make us wait another year for Universal Binaries of the Creative Suite, and when they do arrive they're going to charge us $400 for them.

What's worse, they released After Effects 7 in January and Photoshop Elements in February with no Universal Binary in site. Since Adobe works on an 18-24 month product cycle, and won't supply an update to provide Intel support, it's going to be another 18-24 month wait for Elements and After Effects users. There's no excuse why Universal Binaries didn't make the cut in this round of updates. Adobe stood on stage last June and said how excited they were about the transition, which they surely had even further prior knowledge of.

I'm not ranting at you directly, JeffDM, it's just that the thought of using After Effects through Rosetta for two years makes me furious.
post #14 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by atavistic
Xserve still a ways off since 'Server' is not yet Universal (can't run on Intel chips). Getting Server ported will take some work. Don't think it's been the highest software priority in the past few months.

My guess:

iBook - April
WWDC - 10.5 Preview
PowerMac - September/October
XServe - very late 2006 or early 2007 (MacWorld?), maybe even held to 10.5

Gotta believe the duo/quad core chips are going to be toasters in the PM/XServes. I see 10+ GHz marketing claims coming with their introduction.

Sounds good to me..!
zenga
Reply
zenga
Reply
post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
Adobe is sitting on their ass with Photoshop.



Maybe they were sitting on their ass but I strongly doubt they are now. Have you read:

Inside Mac interview with Photoshop Product Manager John Nack

... starting at On progress toward Universal Binary versions of Adobe product?
post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
JeffDM, Maxon's Cinema 4D, which has been around since 1993, was made available as a Universal Binary for current version 9.5 customers free of charge on January 30th. That's a major 3D application that is as complex as Adobe's applications, if not much more so. There's no excuse for Adobe to not have their Universal Binaries ready, or close to it. Maintaining and cleaning up twenty years of old code is something they should constantly be doing, not just when it's deemed necessary by the arrival of a new Operating System or Hardware. It absolutely blows my mind that Adobe's going to make us wait another year for Universal Binaries of the Creative Suite, and when they do arrive they're going to charge us $400 for them.

What's worse, they released After Effects 7 in January and Photoshop Elements in February with no Universal Binary in site. Since Adobe works on an 18-24 month product cycle, and won't supply an update to provide Intel support, it's going to be another 18-24 month wait for Elements and After Effects users. There's no excuse why Universal Binaries didn't make the cut in this round of updates. Adobe stood on stage last June and said how excited they were about the transition, which they surely had even further prior knowledge of.

I'm not ranting at you directly, JeffDM, it's just that the thought of using After Effects through Rosetta for two years makes me furious.

To be fair, is not C4D coded in Xcode...?

As for Adobe, they are wankers who have been dragging their heels for awhile, refusing to switch over to Xcode when Apple told everyone to...

I wish Apple would come out with a product that could totally replace the Adobe DTP collection...

We all know they are really close to negating the entire Adobe video collection...

Gotta mix Shake & Motion just so... Now fold gently into Final Cut Studio...

;^p
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk


Maybe they were sitting on their ass but I strongly doubt they are now. Have you read:

Inside Mac interview with Photoshop Product Manager John Nack

"We're really starting to look into this whole Universal Binary thing. We think it's going to be a big hit with our Mac customer base. We did a pretty piss poor job of moving the Adobe apps over to OS X six years ago, and we never did get around to moving our applications to that whole Xcode thing over the course of the last five years while Apple continuously warned us how crucial it was. So this whole Intel thing is going to be a lot of work for us. I think James is going to start rewriting Photoshop sometime in August - he's the after-hours security officer. In the meantime, we suggest you try using the Lightroom beta for organizing your photos!" - Adobe Product Manager

More or less.
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer

......I'm not ranting at you directly, JeffDM, it's just that the thought of using After Effects through Rosetta for two years makes me furious.

Ditto. Perhaps it's time for Apple to really plow some man hours into Motion and give the mud brick boys a run for their money. Take away motion graphics like they took away video editing.

Yes, I realize that you really don't want a cycle of market poaching and retaliation with one of your main software developers, but hell, if Adobe is just going to treat the platform like an afterthought Apple would do well to start thinking about replacements for CS.

I use CS all the time and am pretty comfortable with it, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the UI, going in the direction of Motion and Aperture.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin
[snip]I wish Apple would come out with a product that could totally replace the Adobe DTP collection... [and snipsnip]
;^p

I hope not.
The problem I encounter with graphic designers is that they have IndesignCS2 in the box and using Xpress6.5 because they know the latter.
Although they complain about how Xpress6.5 sucks in day to day use they don't switch.

In old europe you pay a whopping 1,500 euro for a copy of Quark Xpress.
Adobe CS2 premium is about the same.
Cost-effectively they should switch to IndesignCS but the fact that they have to learn to work with that programm keeps them from doing so.
There is also a huge percentage of graphic designers who still use Xpress4.1 in Classic.

So I don't think a lot of graphic pros will rave about an Apple DTP collection.
a) It won't be very crossplatform compatible.
b) It's bad for bussiness, because it costs time and money to learn to use another set of tools. Time in which the graphic designer is not productive.

ah well, we'll see what happens.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Ditto. Perhaps it's time for Apple to really plow some man hours into Motion and give the mud brick boys a run for their money. Take away motion graphics like they took away video editing.

Yes, I realize that you really don't want a cycle of market poaching and retaliation with one of your main software developers, but hell, if Adobe is just going to treat the platform like an afterthought Apple would do well to start thinking about replacements for CS.

I use CS all the time and am pretty comfortable with it, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the UI, going in the direction of Motion and Aperture.

I would looooove an upgraded MotionPro that would hit AE head on for market share. Any effort in that direction would be great. 8)

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by atavistic
Xserve still a ways off since 'Server' is not yet Universal (can't run on Intel chips). Getting Server ported will take some work. Don't think it's been the highest software priority in the past few months.

Aren't most of the server admin tools java based? How much difference between the client and server codebases can there be?
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by atavistic
Xserve still a ways off since 'Server' is not yet Universal (can't run on Intel chips). Getting Server ported will take some work. Don't think it's been the highest software priority in the past few months.

My guess:

iBook - April
WWDC - 10.5 Preview
PowerMac - September/October
XServe - very late 2006 or early 2007 (MacWorld?), maybe even held to 10.5

Gotta believe the duo/quad core chips are going to be toasters in the PM/XServes. I see 10+ GHz marketing claims coming with their introduction.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of priority. MacOS X Server should be significantly easier to port than the client stuff. And Apple *could* come out with a P4 server that pretty much cleans the current xServe's clock all around.

But Apple isn't going to use any of the "old" chips because then their kernels are easier to hack to generic hardware. The only reason 10.4.5's kernel hasn't been hacked yet (although the rest of 10.4.5 has) is because it doesn't support anything other than the Core CPUs.
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by MacRonin


I wish Apple would come out with a product that could totally replace the Adobe DTP collection...

^p

I wish Apple would just buy Adobe. Then Apple could take a page out of the MS playbook and make windows users wait for their version and make it real buggy.
post #24 of 49
Screw buying Adobe. That's like buying a tenderloin that's %60 fat.

What I wish we had was a vibrant market like back in the days when you had Photoshop battling Live Picture and Xres. When you had Mtropolis battling Director from Macromedia.

The computer market is in need of a true revolution. Not the marketing kind.

And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Screw buying Adobe. That's like buying a tenderloin that's %60 fat.

What I wish we had was a vibrant market like back in the days when you had Photoshop battling Live Picture and Xres. When you had Mtropolis battling Director from Macromedia.

The computer market is in need of a true revolution. Not the marketing kind.

And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.

You can always trim fat. IMO, it's hard to inject market competition in mature markets like this. The cats already out of the bag, so to speak. I would love to see windows users wait a year after mac users to get version of cs2. Starve the users till they convert platforms. A mac inquisition. This formula works. I don't know why Apple won't take the gloves off and fight dirty.
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.

If the PowerMac replacement is to be taken seriously as a workstation computer, then it will need workstation type chips, meaning Xeon DP or whatever they will rename it to with the Woodcrest generation as Woodcrest appears to be in that market and lineage. Conroe a chip meant for consumer desktops, not workstations.
post #27 of 49
OK WWDC bumped to August. Combining/refining my earlier forecast to

WWDC - Preview Leopard (10.5) and announce Quad Core (2 X 2) '10' GHz Power Mac shipping 'next month'. (Sept. '06).
XServes to follow in Nov/Dec.

I need to stop predicting and buy a computer. My 12 PB 1 GHz is getting slower all the time.
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
You can always trim fat. IMO, it's hard to inject market competition in mature markets like this. The cats already out of the bag, so to speak. I would love to see windows users wait a year after mac users to get version of cs2. Starve the users till they convert platforms. A mac inquisition. This formula works. I don't know why Apple won't take the gloves off and fight dirty.

You know, the thought of buying Adobe had occurred to me as well... it would cost what, $30 billion? The problem would be, I think, getting management to go along with it--a hostile takeover would need to be avoided (and Adobe probably has a poision pill provision anyway). An even bigger problem would probably be the DoJ, getting them to approve a merger after Adobe and Macromedia just combined.

All those problems aside, though, I'm not sure what Adobe would bring to the table would be worth ~$30B. User base? Sure... but like you said, this is such a "mature market" that I significantly doubt that Apple couldn't invest elsewhere and get a better return on its money.

But even if Apple did buy Adobe, I wouldn't want them to sit on CS2 for Windows if it were ready (and the mac version weren't). Converting code does take time--and though Adobe has done abysmally so far, it's really more a question of money than anything else.
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
post #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Dirk
You know, the thought of buying Adobe had occurred to me as well... it would cost what, $30 billion? The problem would be, I think, getting management to go along with it--a hostile takeover would need to be avoided (and Adobe probably has a poision pill provision anyway). An even bigger problem would probably be the DoJ, getting them to approve a merger after Adobe and Macromedia just combined.

All those problems aside, though, I'm not sure what Adobe would bring to the table would be worth ~$30B. User base? Sure... but like you said, this is such a "mature market" that I significantly doubt that Apple couldn't invest elsewhere and get a better return on its money.

But even if Apple did buy Adobe, I wouldn't want them to sit on CS2 for Windows if it were ready (and the mac version weren't). Converting code does take time--and though Adobe has done abysmally so far, it's really more a question of money than anything else.

Comments on anti-trust issues are very true in my estimation. I'm really thinking out loud, which usually gets punished severely in the forums.

On a more serious note, you alluded to the dilema Apple faces. If they purchase Adobe they could ensure survival of macs in that industry, but if they killed off the windows user base then the value of the business might be decreased. MS can do shit like this (engage in practices that decrease their ROI in order to eventually dominate a market) and survive for years, see xbox. But Apple...

Can Apple introduce a competing app? I wonder.
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
Amen.

How do they get away with it when AMD is rox0ring their box0rz with such extreme prejudice?

Even for cheap and mid-range machines AMD is still better.. it's kind of sad.

I still think Apple should have gone with AMD over Intel...AMD is pwning them in every category...more performance for less money...I haven't had an Intel chip in my PC's since the original Pentium.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #31 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by iPoster
I still think Apple should have gone with AMD over Intel...AMD is pwning them in every category...more performance for less money...I haven't had an Intel chip in my PC's since the original Pentium.

Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.

It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.

The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.

It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.

The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.

Intels are running hotter than AMDs at this point, and may I remind you that coreduos are crazy 'spensive

the one in 2.1ghz is $600.. yikes!
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.

It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.

The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.

I agree. Look I have a pc with AMD athlon chip. It's nice, no doubt. But looking foward, Intel seems to have the better hand. I'm sure AMD has some products it will bring out to challenge Intel, but with conroe and woodcrest coming put I think AMD will finally be chasing Intel for a while.
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I agree. Look I have a pc with AMD athlon chip. It's nice, no doubt. But looking foward, Intel seems to have the better hand. I'm sure AMD has some products it will bring out to challenge Intel, but with conroe and woodcrest coming put I think AMD will finally be chasing Intel for a while.

The sensible option, performance wise at least, would have been to use both. Intel on the laptops, AMD on the PowerMac/Xserve. That way you get low power on the laptops where it's important, and high bandwidth and scalability on the PowerMac/XServe.

Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.
post #35 of 49
Come now, for a desktop AMD's chips blow the doors off the Core Duo. Core Duo's the best laptop chip these days, but don't get carried away.

As for Photoshop, the folks who spent big bucks on the CS because of being forced into the Mac OS X migration are probably thinking they could have bought a PC for about the same price and stayed with PS7 (which does everything most people need and more). They might want to think along those lines again.
post #36 of 49
And Intel's coming chips are still playing catch-up with AMD's. Woodcrest is intended to compete with Opterons that have already been out for a year or more.
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The sensible option, performance wise at least, would have been to use both. Intel on the laptops, AMD on the PowerMac/Xserve. That way you get low power on the laptops where it's important, and high bandwidth and scalability on the PowerMac/XServe.

Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.

Yes all things being equal. I suspect Apple received some special inducements to be an all Intel inside maker that we just don't know about.
post #38 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
Intels are running hotter than AMDs at this point, and may I remind you that coreduos are crazy 'spensive

the one in 2.1ghz is $600.. yikes!

Hot like what exactly? Hot place, next to Whore peak?

The Core Duo chips are much cooler than the AMDs chips with the same clockrate.
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.

You don't say. I'm shocked.

Are there other ways to be ahead? How about you trying fabbing a 65nm chip and get back to us on how easy it is to 'get ahead'.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
Come now, for a desktop AMD's chips blow the doors off the Core Duo. Core Duo's the best laptop chip these days, but don't get carried away.

The core duo is on par with AMD athlon. Maybe the opteron blows the doors off the core duo but not the athlon.

See link below:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2648&p=14
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel expected to tout dual-core Xeon chips on Tuesday