"Also, the CPU upgrade is a different type of intel processor whereas the 2.0 and 1.83 are practically the same. If you're worried about problems the safe bet is to stick with the 2.0"
I would really be interested in a link for this - I have heard this from many different people, but I can't find any hard references.
There won't be any hard references because the 2.16 GHz Core Duo is exactly like the 2, 1.83 and 1.66 GHz Core Duo CPUs, just clocked 167 MHz faster. They are Intel Yonah chips.
In late Q2, a 2.33 GHz Yonah Core Duo will likely show up as a Core Duo T2700.
Intel does have a naming convention issue in 2007. By then Merom mobile chips would be shipping, but there's only 2 names left for the naming convention: 2800 and 2900. The "2" identifies it as a "Duo" or dual-core processor. A "1", eg. T1300, indicates a "Solo" or single-core processor. So when Merom shows up, after 2.5 and 2.67 speed grades take up the 2800 and 2900, what happens with a 2.8 GHz mobile processor. T2950?
Intel does have a naming convention issue in 2007. By then Merom mobile chips would be shipping, but there's only 2 names left for the naming convention: 2800 and 2900. The "2" identifies it as a "Duo" or dual-core processor. A "1", eg. T1300, indicates a "Solo" or single-core processor. So when Merom shows up, after 2.5 and 2.67 speed grades take up the 2800 and 2900, what happens with a 2.8 GHz mobile processor. T2950?
Comments
Originally posted by vgoklani
"Also, the CPU upgrade is a different type of intel processor whereas the 2.0 and 1.83 are practically the same. If you're worried about problems the safe bet is to stick with the 2.0"
I would really be interested in a link for this - I have heard this from many different people, but I can't find any hard references.
There won't be any hard references because the 2.16 GHz Core Duo is exactly like the 2, 1.83 and 1.66 GHz Core Duo CPUs, just clocked 167 MHz faster. They are Intel Yonah chips.
In late Q2, a 2.33 GHz Yonah Core Duo will likely show up as a Core Duo T2700.
Intel does have a naming convention issue in 2007. By then Merom mobile chips would be shipping, but there's only 2 names left for the naming convention: 2800 and 2900. The "2" identifies it as a "Duo" or dual-core processor. A "1", eg. T1300, indicates a "Solo" or single-core processor. So when Merom shows up, after 2.5 and 2.67 speed grades take up the 2800 and 2900, what happens with a 2.8 GHz mobile processor. T2950?
ALso, if you've maxed out RAM and drive, umm, would the 2.16 GHz upgrade really be a problem?
Originally posted by THT
Intel does have a naming convention issue in 2007. By then Merom mobile chips would be shipping, but there's only 2 names left for the naming convention: 2800 and 2900. The "2" identifies it as a "Duo" or dual-core processor. A "1", eg. T1300, indicates a "Solo" or single-core processor. So when Merom shows up, after 2.5 and 2.67 speed grades take up the 2800 and 2900, what happens with a 2.8 GHz mobile processor. T2950?
Merom uses 5 for single core and 7 for dual core.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29514
Originally posted by wmf
Merom uses 5 for single core and 7 for dual core.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29514
Heh. Interesting.
1000 series for Yonah single core
2000 series for Yonah dual core
3000 series for ???
4000 series for ???
5000 series for Merom single core
6000 series for Conroe
7000 series for Merom dual core
8000 series for Woodcrest???
9000 series for extreme editions???
Anyways, what happens after the next 3 speed grades. This sort of nomenclature stuff takes millions of dollars to figure out inside Intel.
Originally posted by Anders
3XXX and 4XXX are the extra secret Apple chips Intel has developed just for Apple.
Steve mentioned those in episode 2 of Super Secret Apple Rumors.
Originally posted by Xool
Steve mentioned those in episode 2 of Super Secret Apple Rumors.
I have a link to the stream of it.
http://www.enomer.dk/supersekretxxxx.mov
Originally posted by webmail
just to be clear it is not 160mhz. it's 160x2
The difference is the same. 8% in a system where it isn´t the processor that is the bottleneck.