well, if apple puts a core duo in the ibook, how are they going to differentiate the ibook and the macbook pro 12"/13"/whatever-inch...?
are they going to resort to crippling the ibook with silly hacks this time around too?
why not let a single core cpu, like the core solo (or even the oh-no-dont-go-there-'cus-i-had-a-compaq-wintel-with-a-similar-named-cpu-back-in-the-nineties celeron-m?!) , to be the lacking feature in the consumer laptop differenting it from the 'pro' laptop?
(i think it would be nice having actual useful features, like dvi-out with spanning, without having to pay $500+ more just for that...)
well, if apple puts a core duo in the ibook, how are they going to differentiate the ibook and the macbook pro 12"/13"/whatever-inch...?
are they going to resort to crippling the ibook with silly hacks this time around too?
why not let a single core cpu, like the core solo (or even the oh-no-dont-go-there-'cus-i-had-a-compaq-wintel-with-a-similar-named-cpu-back-in-the-nineties celeron-m?!) , to be the lacking feature in the consumer laptop differenting it from the 'pro' laptop?
(i think it would be nice having actual useful features, like dvi-out with spanning, without having to pay $500+ more just for that...)
Well celeron makes sense from a marketing and economic standpoint. They are a cheaper and would give the pro models a decisive performance advantage over the iBook. However most of us were not looking forward to the Intel transition so that we could get Macs with celeron chips. Not trying to sound so to harsh, but is this(celeron chips) the part of the Intel roadmap that is supposed to be better than ppc chips? It very well may be, but most observers were thinking Yonah, Merom, and Conroe.
sigh, we have been through this a hundred times before...
THE CELERON-M 4XX IS A YONAH BASED CHIP!!!
...look what you made me do, caps and all...
edit: basically, what i've been trying to say altrough this thread is that celeron-m doesnt suck just because it's namned 'celeron-something', in fact it's a very capable, modern and cost-effective chip.
sigh, we have been through this a hundred times before...
THE CELERON-M 4XX IS A YONAH BASED CHIP!!!
...look what you made me do, caps and all...
edit: basically, what i've been trying to say altrough this thread is that celeron-m doesnt suck just because it's namned 'celeron-something', in fact it's a very capable, modern and cost-effective chip.
edit2: doh
You are probably more knowledgable on this topic than I am but I thought that celeron m and Yonah chips were derived from the pentium m line. The celeron m being 'crippled' compared to the pentium m while the Yonah is enhanced. Whats the performance of a celeron m compared to a core solo and duo?
[(or even the oh-no-dont-go-there-'cus-i-had-a-compaq-wintel-with-a-similar-named-cpu-back-in-the-nineties celeron-m?!) , [/B][/QUOTE]
Man that name has some negative connotations. If it is a good chip then they should change the name. It's like Mercedes coming out with a new model and calling it the pinto.
You are probably more knowledgable on this topic than I am but I thought that celeron m and Yonah chips were derived from the pentium m line. The celeron m being 'crippled' compared to the pentium m while the Yonah is enhanced. Whats the performance of a celeron m compared to a core solo and duo?
The current Celeron M 3xx series is based on the 90nm Pentium M Dothan and has a 1MB L2 cache and speeds up to 1.6Ghz. It doesn't support some of the power saving functions of the Pentium M or Core. It has a 400Mhz FSB. There's a 1.7Ghz part expected around now.
The Celeron M 4xx series is based on the 65nm Core Solo running up to 1.83Ghz with a 533Mhz FSB and I'd guess a 1MB L2 cache still. The Core Solo has 2MB and a 667Mhz bus. I don't know if it'll support the same SpeedStep power saving technology.
That makes the Celeron M 4xx series pretty much a dead ringer for what was the previous Pentium M but in 65nm and therefore lower power and supporting SSE3.
People should really get it out of their heads that Celeron = bad. A 1.6Ghz Celeron M 4xx with a 533Mhz FSB and 1MB cache would blow away the old G4 models.
Man that name has some negative connotations. If it is a good chip then they should change the name. It's like Mercedes coming out with a new model and calling it the pinto. [/B]
Back in the day, the hottest BeOS rig you could build was a dual 366Mhz Mendocino Celeron overclocked to 550Mhz on an ABIT BP6 motherboard. Essentially they were identical to the Pentium II but with less cache. For some reason Intel slipped up with their chip protection and didn't switch off the SMP capability on that batch of Celerons so you could run two and clock them up reliably by switching from a 66Mhz to 100Mhz FSB. I've still got my Dual Celeron box which has been running overclocked to 550Mhz for almost 7 years now.
It's running Linux now though I might put BeOS back on for nostalgia's sake.
The first Celerons however were a complete joke as they had no L2 cache at all. Intel seemed to overcompensate for their mistake with the Mendocino to the point where the performance was almost identical to the Pentium II but you could buy a 366Mhz CPU for about $50.
Me, I really want a nice little low voltage Core Duo tablet from Apple...
I see room for 3 sizes:
An 8.x" model, for the PDA/Pocket PC (aka; admins, geeks & medical staff) niche...
That size isn't pocket anything except for the cargo pants set. I'd love a tablet computer, but I can't justify the additional cost vs. a regular notebook. I hope Apple can revitalize the market segment, but it still seems to be a niche.
Funny, this article basically says what I've been saying in postings for the last month.
It just makes sense, people. Who is going to pay $1299 for an ibook with HALF the performance of a $1499 macbook?
You are following the assumtion that computer performance increase is linear with the number of processors when it simply isn't the case.
I don't understand why some Mac fans were surprised that the dual core iMacs weren't 2x faster than the previous single processor revision, especially given that many of the programs in the tests such as what Macworld used scales very poorly with added processors.
I don't know if it'll support the same SpeedStep power saving technology.
afaik, it does.
without speedstep i would argue it's not a good chip for the ibook.
benchmarking of the pentium-m (2mb cache) and the celeron-m (1mb cache) (both dothan based) show there's almost no difference in real-world performance at equal clockspeeds.
i think there would be a similar relationship between a yonah-based celeron-m and core solo.
Apple, just like most other companies, seems to spread its products out over price points. For example, the ipod prices are 69, 99, 149, 199, 249, 299, and 399. With the current MacBooks, Apple does not have anything under the $1999 mark. To my way of thinking, Apple will need to spread out its products over this price range, which means we can expect portables at least at about $1499 and $999, and probably lower and higher. Given Apple's iPod success at the low end, they might want to offer iBooks at prices lower than $999.
My point is that Apple has plenty of price point room to offer anything it wants among what people are guessing, so right now, we don't have enough information to make very informed guesses. What we do know is that just about anything is possible, including a 13" MacBook Pro with a 2 Ghz processor and a $1799 price point, or an iBook with the cheapest single core chip, 40 gb HD, CDRW-DVD drive for $799. Keep in mind that it would still be faster than the current iBook on UB apps.
The current Celeron M 3xx series is based on the 90nm Pentium M Dothan and has a 1MB L2 cache and speeds up to 1.6Ghz. It doesn't support some of the power saving functions of the Pentium M or Core. It has a 400Mhz FSB. There's a 1.7Ghz part expected around now.
The Celeron M 4xx series is based on the 65nm Core Solo running up to 1.83Ghz with a 533Mhz FSB and I'd guess a 1MB L2 cache still. The Core Solo has 2MB and a 667Mhz bus. I don't know if it'll support the same SpeedStep power saving technology.
That makes the Celeron M 4xx series pretty much a dead ringer for what was the previous Pentium M but in 65nm and therefore lower power and supporting SSE3.
People should really get it out of their heads that Celeron = bad. A 1.6Ghz Celeron M 4xx with a 533Mhz FSB and 1MB cache would blow away the old G4 models.
Thanks for the info. Guess I'm going to have to open up my mind to the celeron m.
Comments
are they going to resort to crippling the ibook with silly hacks this time around too?
why not let a single core cpu, like the core solo (or even the oh-no-dont-go-there-'cus-i-had-a-compaq-wintel-with-a-similar-named-cpu-back-in-the-nineties celeron-m?!)
(i think it would be nice having actual useful features, like dvi-out with spanning, without having to pay $500+ more just for that...)
Originally posted by tubgirl
well, if apple puts a core duo in the ibook, how are they going to differentiate the ibook and the macbook pro 12"/13"/whatever-inch...?
are they going to resort to crippling the ibook with silly hacks this time around too?
why not let a single core cpu, like the core solo (or even the oh-no-dont-go-there-'cus-i-had-a-compaq-wintel-with-a-similar-named-cpu-back-in-the-nineties celeron-m?!)
(i think it would be nice having actual useful features, like dvi-out with spanning, without having to pay $500+ more just for that...)
Well celeron makes sense from a marketing and economic standpoint. They are a cheaper and would give the pro models a decisive performance advantage over the iBook. However most of us were not looking forward to the Intel transition so that we could get Macs with celeron chips. Not trying to sound so to harsh, but is this(celeron chips) the part of the Intel roadmap that is supposed to be better than ppc chips? It very well may be, but most observers were thinking Yonah, Merom, and Conroe.
Originally posted by backtomac
Yonah
sigh, we have been through this a hundred times before...
THE CELERON-M 4XX IS A YONAH BASED CHIP!!!
...look what you made me do, caps and all...
edit: basically, what i've been trying to say altrough this thread is that celeron-m doesnt suck just because it's namned 'celeron-something', in fact it's a very capable, modern and cost-effective chip.
edit2: doh
Originally posted by tubgirl
sigh, we have been through this a hundred times before...
THE CELERON-M 4XX IS A YONAH BASED CHIP!!!
...look what you made me do, caps and all...
edit: basically, what i've been trying to say altrough this thread is that celeron-m doesnt suck just because it's namned 'celeron-something', in fact it's a very capable, modern and cost-effective chip.
edit2: doh
You are probably more knowledgable on this topic than I am but I thought that celeron m and Yonah chips were derived from the pentium m line. The celeron m being 'crippled' compared to the pentium m while the Yonah is enhanced. Whats the performance of a celeron m compared to a core solo and duo?
Man that name has some negative connotations. If it is a good chip then they should change the name. It's like Mercedes coming out with a new model and calling it the pinto.
Originally posted by backtomac
You are probably more knowledgable on this topic than I am but I thought that celeron m and Yonah chips were derived from the pentium m line. The celeron m being 'crippled' compared to the pentium m while the Yonah is enhanced. Whats the performance of a celeron m compared to a core solo and duo?
The current Celeron M 3xx series is based on the 90nm Pentium M Dothan and has a 1MB L2 cache and speeds up to 1.6Ghz. It doesn't support some of the power saving functions of the Pentium M or Core. It has a 400Mhz FSB. There's a 1.7Ghz part expected around now.
The Celeron M 4xx series is based on the 65nm Core Solo running up to 1.83Ghz with a 533Mhz FSB and I'd guess a 1MB L2 cache still. The Core Solo has 2MB and a 667Mhz bus. I don't know if it'll support the same SpeedStep power saving technology.
That makes the Celeron M 4xx series pretty much a dead ringer for what was the previous Pentium M but in 65nm and therefore lower power and supporting SSE3.
People should really get it out of their heads that Celeron = bad. A 1.6Ghz Celeron M 4xx with a 533Mhz FSB and 1MB cache would blow away the old G4 models.
Originally posted by backtomac
Man that name has some negative connotations. If it is a good chip then they should change the name. It's like Mercedes coming out with a new model and calling it the pinto.
Back in the day, the hottest BeOS rig you could build was a dual 366Mhz Mendocino Celeron overclocked to 550Mhz on an ABIT BP6 motherboard. Essentially they were identical to the Pentium II but with less cache. For some reason Intel slipped up with their chip protection and didn't switch off the SMP capability on that batch of Celerons so you could run two and clock them up reliably by switching from a 66Mhz to 100Mhz FSB. I've still got my Dual Celeron box which has been running overclocked to 550Mhz for almost 7 years now.
It's running Linux now though I might put BeOS back on for nostalgia's sake.
The first Celerons however were a complete joke as they had no L2 cache at all. Intel seemed to overcompensate for their mistake with the Mendocino to the point where the performance was almost identical to the Pentium II but you could buy a 366Mhz CPU for about $50.
Originally posted by MacRonin
Me, I really want a nice little low voltage Core Duo tablet from Apple...
I see room for 3 sizes:
An 8.x" model, for the PDA/Pocket PC (aka; admins, geeks & medical staff) niche...
That size isn't pocket anything except for the cargo pants set. I'd love a tablet computer, but I can't justify the additional cost vs. a regular notebook. I hope Apple can revitalize the market segment, but it still seems to be a niche.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Funny, this article basically says what I've been saying in postings for the last month.
It just makes sense, people. Who is going to pay $1299 for an ibook with HALF the performance of a $1499 macbook?
You are following the assumtion that computer performance increase is linear with the number of processors when it simply isn't the case.
I don't understand why some Mac fans were surprised that the dual core iMacs weren't 2x faster than the previous single processor revision, especially given that many of the programs in the tests such as what Macworld used scales very poorly with added processors.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I don't know if it'll support the same SpeedStep power saving technology.
afaik, it does.
without speedstep i would argue it's not a good chip for the ibook.
benchmarking of the pentium-m (2mb cache) and the celeron-m (1mb cache) (both dothan based) show there's almost no difference in real-world performance at equal clockspeeds.
i think there would be a similar relationship between a yonah-based celeron-m and core solo.
Apple, just like most other companies, seems to spread its products out over price points. For example, the ipod prices are 69, 99, 149, 199, 249, 299, and 399. With the current MacBooks, Apple does not have anything under the $1999 mark. To my way of thinking, Apple will need to spread out its products over this price range, which means we can expect portables at least at about $1499 and $999, and probably lower and higher. Given Apple's iPod success at the low end, they might want to offer iBooks at prices lower than $999.
My point is that Apple has plenty of price point room to offer anything it wants among what people are guessing, so right now, we don't have enough information to make very informed guesses. What we do know is that just about anything is possible, including a 13" MacBook Pro with a 2 Ghz processor and a $1799 price point, or an iBook with the cheapest single core chip, 40 gb HD, CDRW-DVD drive for $799. Keep in mind that it would still be faster than the current iBook on UB apps.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The current Celeron M 3xx series is based on the 90nm Pentium M Dothan and has a 1MB L2 cache and speeds up to 1.6Ghz. It doesn't support some of the power saving functions of the Pentium M or Core. It has a 400Mhz FSB. There's a 1.7Ghz part expected around now.
The Celeron M 4xx series is based on the 65nm Core Solo running up to 1.83Ghz with a 533Mhz FSB and I'd guess a 1MB L2 cache still. The Core Solo has 2MB and a 667Mhz bus. I don't know if it'll support the same SpeedStep power saving technology.
That makes the Celeron M 4xx series pretty much a dead ringer for what was the previous Pentium M but in 65nm and therefore lower power and supporting SSE3.
People should really get it out of their heads that Celeron = bad. A 1.6Ghz Celeron M 4xx with a 533Mhz FSB and 1MB cache would blow away the old G4 models.
Thanks for the info. Guess I'm going to have to open up my mind to the celeron m.
Originally posted by backtomac
Thanks for the info. Guess I'm going to have to open up my mind to the celeron m.
dont feel too bad about it, almost everyone reacts the same way...
maybe intel will change the name of it, now that it's being delayed and all?
core celeron, core lite, core banana, just 'intel core'...? i dont know..