Yes sir it did. This will be very nice indeed, provided that Apple supplies nice XP drivers for its videocards. I assume it'll just swap in the PC drivers, are the Mac cards any different from the PC ones now that the Intel switch happened?
I'll still have to pay a premium but by the sounds of it processors on the new Macs are upgradeable.
The only difference the cards have had is firmware. And, of course, ATI produces a card that has firmware for both. Too bad it's an old GPU. But it just shows that not only can it be done, but that the cpu in the machine really doesn't matter.
I'm still wishing that Apple's new towers will include at least one with dual Woodcrests.
Well, Conroe will be shipping in Q3 2006, but they won't be shipping in volume until late 2006/early 2007. a.k.a. Apple will have a hell of a time shipping computers out in volume. Want another MacBook Pro fiasco on a larger scale?
That's why I'm still thinking Woodcrests. They will be out earlier. Possibly 3rd quarter, and are really the match-up Apple needs against Opteron's, and, of course, comparable machines from the PC camp using Xeons, which will be ? Woodcrests!
Oh man, so that's why they called it "Yikes!". I had never heard the whole story.
Yikes was before the problem. It was with the Sawtooth that the problem emerged. I had ordered my daughter a 450Mhz machine right after they were announced. Then, a couple of weeks afterwards, Apple announced that all the machines would be degraded (my word, not theirs) by 50MHz. The outcry was rather, uh, unmuted, let us say.
So, they announced that everyone who had ordered a machine before the announcement would get what they ordered, but those who had ordered afterwards would get the slower machines.
That was the beginning of the end of Apple's reign of superior firepower.
That's why I'm still thinking Woodcrests. They will be out earlier. Possibly 3rd quarter, and are really the match-up Apple needs against Opteron's, and, of course, comparable machines from the PC camp using Xeons, which will be ? Woodcrests!
If the power requirements were low enough. That would make a killer iMac.
But, in video editing, we are always comparing the highest end machines against one another, and Conroe just doesn't make it.
Woodcrest has a max 1.333GHs memory bus compared to the 1.066GHz bus for Conroe. With Intel's limitations in that area compared to AMD, every MHz helps. Remember, even though the bus's are different, the 2.5GHz G5 had a 1.250GHz bus.
As I said, Apple could use Conroe for the lower models, and use Woodcrest for the high end.
Don't forget that Pixar is writing software for OS X. And Jobs made the statement a couple of years that he hated writing those checks out to Dell.
Also, supposedly, Apple is coming out with something major for NAB, later this month. Software, and hardware. 17" MBP? Maybe. But, maybe something else.
EDIT:
Oh, yeah, Conroe will be showing up on every $750 PC around. Think about it.
I'm seeing a continuing and disturbing trend here that defies logic.
Conroe AND Woodcrest share the same core. They both have the same 14 pipeline stage Core Architecture. The primary difference is that Woodcrest supports SMP and has a 1333 FSB to Conroe's 1066, support Dual Independent Bus and perhaps twice the L2(which I am beginning to doubt that it will at launch)
Thus Conroe in not really a consumer only processor. In fact Yonah is more likely the new consumer desktop Conroe the midrange and Woodcrest the highend.
No you won't see all Woodcrest Powermac replacements because to benefit you'd have to have dual socket motherboards and that is expensive.
The iMac may not take conroe that well because its TDP is 65 watts. That's pretty hot for the iMacs thin chassis. We'll see what Apple engineers can do.
If you're running a computer with a single Conroe vs a single Woodcrest the differences in speed will be very minute. The two have the same core so any other differences would come down to cache, FSB and perhaps effect from the DIB. Very small in the real world just as a XEON isn't that much faster than a Pentium 4 until you move to SMP systems.
I'm seeing a continuing and disturbing trend here that defies logic.
Conroe AND Woodcrest share the same core. They both have the same 14 pipeline stage Core Architecture. The primary difference is that Woodcrest supports SMP and has a 1333 FSB to Conroe's 1066, support Dual Independent Bus and perhaps twice the L2(which I am beginning to doubt that it will at launch)
Thus Conroe in not really a consumer only processor. In fact Yonah is more likely the new consumer desktop Conroe the midrange and Woodcrest the highend.
No you won't see all Woodcrest Powermac replacements because to benefit you'd have to have dual socket motherboards and that is expensive.
The iMac may not take conroe that well because its TDP is 65 watts. That's pretty hot for the iMacs thin chassis. We'll see what Apple engineers can do.
If you're running a computer with a single Conroe vs a single Woodcrest the differences in speed will be very minute. The two have the same core so any other differences would come down to cache, FSB and perhaps effect from the DIB. Very small in the real world just as a XEON isn't that much faster than a Pentium 4 until you move to SMP systems.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm seeing references to possibly a 15% or greater performance level from the cache alone. It's unlikely that any PM's would have a single chip.
I would think that $3,300 for a machine would put it into the proper catagory.
I'm not talking about the less expensive models. I made that clear.
If the power requirements were low enough. That would make a killer iMac.
But, in video editing, we are always comparing the highest end machines against one another, and Conroe just doesn't make it.
Woodcrest has a max 1.333GHs memory bus compared to the 1.066GHz bus for Conroe. With Intel's limitations in that area compared to AMD, every MHz helps. Remember, even though the bus's are different, the 2.5GHz G5 had a 1.250GHz bus.
As I said, Apple could use Conroe for the lower models, and use Woodcrest for the high end.
Don't forget that Pixar is writing software for OS X. And Jobs made the statement a couple of years that he hated writing those checks out to Dell.
Also, supposedly, Apple is coming out with something major for NAB, later this month. Software, and hardware. 17" MBP? Maybe. But, maybe something else.
EDIT:
Oh, yeah, Conroe will be showing up on every $750 PC around. Think about it.
The Conroe Extreme Edition will be 3.33GHz and will be sporting a 1333MHz bus. Nothing wrong with that.
The Conroe Extreme Edition will be 3.33GHz and will be sporting a 1333MHz bus. Nothing wrong with that.
It still has a smaller cache. almost no one buys the extreme editions because of the expense. It likely will cost more than a Woodcrest, and be hotter.
Conroe is currently beating the highest-end AMD X2 dualcore (even overclocked above what AMD sells them at) by decent margins as depicted in one of the articles posted already in this thread. How is this not worthy to be a workstation processor?
Conroe is currently beating the highest-end AMD X2 dualcore (even overclocked above what AMD sells them at) by decent margins as depicted in one of the articles posted already in this thread. How is this not worthy to be a workstation processor?
suggest that the current laptop CPUs are enough to be at the very top of the best desktop AMD and Intel CPUs.
The replacement of the G5 towers will be faster than that and still not as hot as the G5. Perhaps we can go back to have 2 optical and 4 HDs in those huge towers
When the time comes I will get a ProTower at work to be able to do some Windows only stuff and still have the security and ease of OS X.
Conroe is currently beating the highest-end AMD X2 dualcore (even overclocked above what AMD sells them at) by decent margins as depicted in one of the articles posted already in this thread. How is this not worthy to be a workstation processor?
Because Woodcrest would be faster with 1333 MHz FSB data rates. As hmurchison said, Conroe and Woodcrest are exactly the same core except for different FSB, cache options, and chipset support. Oh, and price. Who knows what Apple will do though.
I'm still sticking to my prediction. The low end Mac Pro machines will be single socket Conroe machines. [Note that "single socket Conroe" is redundant. By definition, all Conroe systems will be single socket systems.] The high end Mac Pro machines will be 2 socket Woodcrest machines using the Glidewell platform (workstation version of Bensley). For the middle range, one can probably flip a coin on it being single socket or 2 socket.
Conroe is currently beating the highest-end AMD X2 dualcore (even overclocked above what AMD sells them at) by decent margins as depicted in one of the articles posted already in this thread. How is this not worthy to be a workstation processor?
Because that's not a workstation cpu. And it wasn't the highest ens model. It was a model at about the same speed as the Conroe.
I'm seeing a continuing and disturbing trend here that defies logic.
Conroe AND Woodcrest share the same core. They both have the same 14 pipeline stage Core Architecture. The primary difference is that Woodcrest supports SMP and has a 1333 FSB to Conroe's 1066, support Dual Independent Bus and perhaps twice the L2(which I am beginning to doubt that it will at launch)
Thus Conroe in not really a consumer only processor. In fact Yonah is more likely the new consumer desktop Conroe the midrange and Woodcrest the highend.
No you won't see all Woodcrest Powermac replacements because to benefit you'd have to have dual socket motherboards and that is expensive.
The iMac may not take conroe that well because its TDP is 65 watts. That's pretty hot for the iMacs thin chassis. We'll see what Apple engineers can do.
If you're running a computer with a single Conroe vs a single Woodcrest the differences in speed will be very minute. The two have the same core so any other differences would come down to cache, FSB and perhaps effect from the DIB. Very small in the real world just as a XEON isn't that much faster than a Pentium 4 until you move to SMP systems.
To address the part that I highlighted in bold. I thought that would be the Memrom processor. I could be wrong.
Back on PowerMac track:
What I figured was once Apple does it's usual scaling back on the new systems Conroe would go into a PowerMac in the low end model as the one single socket model. My logic behind this is because that has been the trend with the PowerMac for the past few years. Apple has been releasing all Dual socket systems at the start to satisfy the major range of their highend market, and then after sales have gotten to a point they throw in an update for the low end model with a single socket to let another portion of their buying market get their hands on a tower if they so wish. I don't see why they would stop doing that. Especially now being that the Conroe is going to come out after the Woodcrest is anyway. This coincidentally turns out like perfect timing for Apple's highend market selling strategy.
On to iMac again:
Another thing to remember is that these processors can come in various speed ranges. If they can separate the models by getting a lower Hz frequency out of a conroe that wont burn up an iMac I'd have to guess they would use Yonah Core Duo's in the iBook, and Mac mini, Memrom's in a MacBook Pro, and a Tablet (unless it's the same product with a swivel screen (((I HOPE))), and a Memrom in the low level 15" iMac, and a scaled back and cooler Conroe for the bigger iMacs. Putting a conroe into an iMac seems unlikely, but I guess it could be a possibility.
Although you can't forget we are dealing with intel now, and not Moto, or IBM so new processors will be rolling out with different speeds, and specs in great abundance. By the time Apple were to get around to feeling they need a Conroe to put life back into iMac sales intel should have a newer processor perfect for the job that we all will be anticipating.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
Yes sir it did. This will be very nice indeed, provided that Apple supplies nice XP drivers for its videocards. I assume it'll just swap in the PC drivers, are the Mac cards any different from the PC ones now that the Intel switch happened?
I'll still have to pay a premium but by the sounds of it processors on the new Macs are upgradeable.
The only difference the cards have had is firmware. And, of course, ATI produces a card that has firmware for both. Too bad it's an old GPU. But it just shows that not only can it be done, but that the cpu in the machine really doesn't matter.
I'm still wishing that Apple's new towers will include at least one with dual Woodcrests.
Originally posted by theapplegenius
Well, Conroe will be shipping in Q3 2006, but they won't be shipping in volume until late 2006/early 2007. a.k.a. Apple will have a hell of a time shipping computers out in volume. Want another MacBook Pro fiasco on a larger scale?
That's why I'm still thinking Woodcrests. They will be out earlier. Possibly 3rd quarter, and are really the match-up Apple needs against Opteron's, and, of course, comparable machines from the PC camp using Xeons, which will be ? Woodcrests!
Originally posted by Placebo
Oh man, so that's why they called it "Yikes!". I had never heard the whole story.
Yikes was before the problem. It was with the Sawtooth that the problem emerged. I had ordered my daughter a 450Mhz machine right after they were announced. Then, a couple of weeks afterwards, Apple announced that all the machines would be degraded (my word, not theirs) by 50MHz. The outcry was rather, uh, unmuted, let us say.
So, they announced that everyone who had ordered a machine before the announcement would get what they ordered, but those who had ordered afterwards would get the slower machines.
That was the beginning of the end of Apple's reign of superior firepower.
Originally posted by melgross
That's why I'm still thinking Woodcrests. They will be out earlier. Possibly 3rd quarter, and are really the match-up Apple needs against Opteron's, and, of course, comparable machines from the PC camp using Xeons, which will be ? Woodcrests!
Where do you think Conroe fits in?
Originally posted by jackbauer
Conroe would be more for the iMac.
Exactly. Because that is Apples consumer desktop.
They have maintained that the PowerMac was their Pro Workstation.
But, in video editing, we are always comparing the highest end machines against one another, and Conroe just doesn't make it.
Woodcrest has a max 1.333GHs memory bus compared to the 1.066GHz bus for Conroe. With Intel's limitations in that area compared to AMD, every MHz helps. Remember, even though the bus's are different, the 2.5GHz G5 had a 1.250GHz bus.
As I said, Apple could use Conroe for the lower models, and use Woodcrest for the high end.
Don't forget that Pixar is writing software for OS X. And Jobs made the statement a couple of years that he hated writing those checks out to Dell.
Also, supposedly, Apple is coming out with something major for NAB, later this month. Software, and hardware. 17" MBP? Maybe. But, maybe something else.
EDIT:
Oh, yeah, Conroe will be showing up on every $750 PC around. Think about it.
Conroe AND Woodcrest share the same core. They both have the same 14 pipeline stage Core Architecture. The primary difference is that Woodcrest supports SMP and has a 1333 FSB to Conroe's 1066, support Dual Independent Bus and perhaps twice the L2(which I am beginning to doubt that it will at launch)
Thus Conroe in not really a consumer only processor. In fact Yonah is more likely the new consumer desktop Conroe the midrange and Woodcrest the highend.
No you won't see all Woodcrest Powermac replacements because to benefit you'd have to have dual socket motherboards and that is expensive.
The iMac may not take conroe that well because its TDP is 65 watts. That's pretty hot for the iMacs thin chassis. We'll see what Apple engineers can do.
If you're running a computer with a single Conroe vs a single Woodcrest the differences in speed will be very minute. The two have the same core so any other differences would come down to cache, FSB and perhaps effect from the DIB. Very small in the real world just as a XEON isn't that much faster than a Pentium 4 until you move to SMP systems.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm seeing a continuing and disturbing trend here that defies logic.
Conroe AND Woodcrest share the same core. They both have the same 14 pipeline stage Core Architecture. The primary difference is that Woodcrest supports SMP and has a 1333 FSB to Conroe's 1066, support Dual Independent Bus and perhaps twice the L2(which I am beginning to doubt that it will at launch)
Thus Conroe in not really a consumer only processor. In fact Yonah is more likely the new consumer desktop Conroe the midrange and Woodcrest the highend.
No you won't see all Woodcrest Powermac replacements because to benefit you'd have to have dual socket motherboards and that is expensive.
The iMac may not take conroe that well because its TDP is 65 watts. That's pretty hot for the iMacs thin chassis. We'll see what Apple engineers can do.
If you're running a computer with a single Conroe vs a single Woodcrest the differences in speed will be very minute. The two have the same core so any other differences would come down to cache, FSB and perhaps effect from the DIB. Very small in the real world just as a XEON isn't that much faster than a Pentium 4 until you move to SMP systems.
I'm not so sure about that. I'm seeing references to possibly a 15% or greater performance level from the cache alone. It's unlikely that any PM's would have a single chip.
I would think that $3,300 for a machine would put it into the proper catagory.
I'm not talking about the less expensive models. I made that clear.
Originally posted by jackbauer
Conroe would be more for the iMac.
if conroe is shipping q2 06, would such an iMac come out in june, or at aug wwdc (or some other time)?
sennen
Originally posted by melgross
If the power requirements were low enough. That would make a killer iMac.
But, in video editing, we are always comparing the highest end machines against one another, and Conroe just doesn't make it.
Woodcrest has a max 1.333GHs memory bus compared to the 1.066GHz bus for Conroe. With Intel's limitations in that area compared to AMD, every MHz helps. Remember, even though the bus's are different, the 2.5GHz G5 had a 1.250GHz bus.
As I said, Apple could use Conroe for the lower models, and use Woodcrest for the high end.
Don't forget that Pixar is writing software for OS X. And Jobs made the statement a couple of years that he hated writing those checks out to Dell.
Also, supposedly, Apple is coming out with something major for NAB, later this month. Software, and hardware. 17" MBP? Maybe. But, maybe something else.
EDIT:
Oh, yeah, Conroe will be showing up on every $750 PC around. Think about it.
The Conroe Extreme Edition will be 3.33GHz and will be sporting a 1333MHz bus. Nothing wrong with that.
Originally posted by theapplegenius
The Conroe Extreme Edition will be 3.33GHz and will be sporting a 1333MHz bus. Nothing wrong with that.
It still has a smaller cache. almost no one buys the extreme editions because of the expense. It likely will cost more than a Woodcrest, and be hotter.
Operating temperature between 35-37 degree celcius, IIRC.
I think it will easily fit in an iMac and will run cooler than the iMacG5.
Originally posted by Placebo
Conroe is currently beating the highest-end AMD X2 dualcore (even overclocked above what AMD sells them at) by decent margins as depicted in one of the articles posted already in this thread. How is this not worthy to be a workstation processor?
I don't understand that either.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/617-...e-desktop.html
suggest that the current laptop CPUs are enough to be at the very top of the best desktop AMD and Intel CPUs.
The replacement of the G5 towers will be faster than that and still not as hot as the G5. Perhaps we can go back to have 2 optical and 4 HDs in those huge towers
When the time comes I will get a ProTower at work to be able to do some Windows only stuff and still have the security and ease of OS X.
The same for home (true RTA, half-life2 etc..)
Originally posted by jackbauer
Conroe would be more for the iMac.
That would be one smoking iMac. Perhaps in more ways than one.
Originally posted by Placebo
Conroe is currently beating the highest-end AMD X2 dualcore (even overclocked above what AMD sells them at) by decent margins as depicted in one of the articles posted already in this thread. How is this not worthy to be a workstation processor?
Because Woodcrest would be faster with 1333 MHz FSB data rates. As hmurchison said, Conroe and Woodcrest are exactly the same core except for different FSB, cache options, and chipset support. Oh, and price. Who knows what Apple will do though.
I'm still sticking to my prediction. The low end Mac Pro machines will be single socket Conroe machines. [Note that "single socket Conroe" is redundant. By definition, all Conroe systems will be single socket systems.] The high end Mac Pro machines will be 2 socket Woodcrest machines using the Glidewell platform (workstation version of Bensley). For the middle range, one can probably flip a coin on it being single socket or 2 socket.
Originally posted by Placebo
Conroe is currently beating the highest-end AMD X2 dualcore (even overclocked above what AMD sells them at) by decent margins as depicted in one of the articles posted already in this thread. How is this not worthy to be a workstation processor?
Because that's not a workstation cpu. And it wasn't the highest ens model. It was a model at about the same speed as the Conroe.
The workstation models are the Opteron's.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm seeing a continuing and disturbing trend here that defies logic.
Conroe AND Woodcrest share the same core. They both have the same 14 pipeline stage Core Architecture. The primary difference is that Woodcrest supports SMP and has a 1333 FSB to Conroe's 1066, support Dual Independent Bus and perhaps twice the L2(which I am beginning to doubt that it will at launch)
Thus Conroe in not really a consumer only processor. In fact Yonah is more likely the new consumer desktop Conroe the midrange and Woodcrest the highend.
No you won't see all Woodcrest Powermac replacements because to benefit you'd have to have dual socket motherboards and that is expensive.
The iMac may not take conroe that well because its TDP is 65 watts. That's pretty hot for the iMacs thin chassis. We'll see what Apple engineers can do.
If you're running a computer with a single Conroe vs a single Woodcrest the differences in speed will be very minute. The two have the same core so any other differences would come down to cache, FSB and perhaps effect from the DIB. Very small in the real world just as a XEON isn't that much faster than a Pentium 4 until you move to SMP systems.
To address the part that I highlighted in bold. I thought that would be the Memrom processor. I could be wrong.
Back on PowerMac track:
What I figured was once Apple does it's usual scaling back on the new systems Conroe would go into a PowerMac in the low end model as the one single socket model. My logic behind this is because that has been the trend with the PowerMac for the past few years. Apple has been releasing all Dual socket systems at the start to satisfy the major range of their highend market, and then after sales have gotten to a point they throw in an update for the low end model with a single socket to let another portion of their buying market get their hands on a tower if they so wish. I don't see why they would stop doing that. Especially now being that the Conroe is going to come out after the Woodcrest is anyway. This coincidentally turns out like perfect timing for Apple's highend market selling strategy.
On to iMac again:
Another thing to remember is that these processors can come in various speed ranges. If they can separate the models by getting a lower Hz frequency out of a conroe that wont burn up an iMac I'd have to guess they would use Yonah Core Duo's in the iBook, and Mac mini, Memrom's in a MacBook Pro, and a Tablet (unless it's the same product with a swivel screen (((I HOPE))), and a Memrom in the low level 15" iMac, and a scaled back and cooler Conroe for the bigger iMacs. Putting a conroe into an iMac seems unlikely, but I guess it could be a possibility.
Although you can't forget we are dealing with intel now, and not Moto, or IBM so new processors will be rolling out with different speeds, and specs in great abundance. By the time Apple were to get around to feeling they need a Conroe to put life back into iMac sales intel should have a newer processor perfect for the job that we all will be anticipating.