Intel hurries next-generation chips

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 175
    Right, H. Only thing more we could hope for is a "Rosetta Turbo" plugin for Adobe that accelerates their apps until they are converted.



    Though, you know, I'm finding myself doing whatever I can outside of Adobe these days and I can't say it's a bad thing.
  • Reply 22 of 175
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Why is it that I get an uncomfortable feeling when I hear that things are being 'hurried'?



    It just doesn't make sense...we were expecting some of these chips in August/September and others in early 2007 and suddenly, like magic, they're going to be available in June?!



    One thing's for sure though if this pans out...Apple is now getting a shitload and variety of chippies...this is a much different situation than what we were seeing less than a year ago.




    Intel has alluded to why they are releasing the chips early, market share loss. AMD is killing them compared to netburst chips. I think they decided they have to stop the bleeding and can't do it with netburst chips. I mentioned a link I came across at Anandtech where a Paxville Xeon was compared to an Optreron and was destroyed.
  • Reply 23 of 175
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    Just to differentiate b/n PC world, IMHO



    XServe - Top end woodcrest

    Mac Pros - Woodcrest



    iMac - Conroe

    Mac Mini - Yonah (heat/noise/watt level reduced then low end Conroe)



    MacBook Pro - Merom

    MacBook - Low end merom





    that will make APPLE clear leader in using latest CPUs...
  • Reply 24 of 175
    backtomac:



    I think the disturbing thing is that it gives the impression the product was rushed to market, though that's not the only option.



    Either Intel was ahead of schedule on development and intentionally pushed back release of the new Core arch to recoup investment on the Yonah cores, or Intel was on schedule and took shortcuts in some aspect of product design/delivery to push ahead the date.



    Let's hope it is the former.
  • Reply 25 of 175
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,408member
    I see the pickle from Intel's standpoint.



    They just announced Intel Core Solo/Duo and before they even get the marketing message out there's going to be Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest coming.



    I'm sure they would have loved to extend just a few more months but they know they have to get the nextgen architecture out.



    Just glad my mini has a socketed processor. I'll be there to scoop up a T2600 next year for a song.



    Expect fire sales on Netburst products as Intel clears the channel.
  • Reply 26 of 175
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet

    backtomac:



    I think the disturbing thing is that it gives the impression the product was rushed to market, though that's not the only option.



    Either Intel was ahead of schedule on development and intentionally pushed back release of the new Core arch to recoup investment on the Yonah cores, or Intel was on schedule and took shortcuts in some aspect of product design/delivery to push ahead the date.



    Let's hope it is the former.




    I don't know this for fact but my guess is that Intels initial RTM timeframe for core architechure had a lot to do with Intel being able to milk the netburst chips for all they could. If they could, I wonder if Intel would like to hold off bringing Core to market not because it isn't ready but so that they could milk some sales out of netburst. Seems to me that AMD forced their hand.



    What I find interesting is Intel's plan moving forward. They lay out a plan that upgades their microarchitechure twice in the next 4 years. That should put a lot of R&D pressure on AMD to keep up. Will they be able to?
  • Reply 27 of 175
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison





    Expect fire sales on Netburst products as Intel clears the channel.




    They already are. Dual core Pent Ds can be had for under $200.
  • Reply 28 of 175
    boogabooga Posts: 1,082member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shanmugam

    Just to differentiate b/n PC world, IMHO



    XServe - Top end woodcrest

    Mac Pros - Woodcrest



    iMac - Conroe

    Mac Mini - Yonah (heat/noise/watt level reduced then low end Conroe)



    MacBook Pro - Merom

    MacBook - Low end merom





    that will make APPLE clear leader in using latest CPUs...




    I think this lineup would probably be a bad idea. For the type of thing most PowerMacs are used for, a Woodcrest would make it too expensive and not offer much in return. I think Conroes will go all the way from iMac to PowerMac to xServe, then maybe a high-end "Pro" version of the PowerMac and xServe with Woodcrests just in case anyone wants 4 processors.
  • Reply 29 of 175
    f00kief00kie Posts: 1member
    Hmm, any chance for an MBP with a Merom at WWDC then? The timeframe looks right.
  • Reply 30 of 175
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    how abt merom and yonah?



    is Yonah & Conore PIN Compatible, i guess Merom & yonah are PIN compatible ...



    if iMac called to be desktop, it shd include conore (most PCs will include conore after Pentium D and of course in some cheap machines as well)



    also i guess, iMac always refreshed very frequetly, i see new iMac in July (with Conore and 64 bit processing) ...
  • Reply 31 of 175
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,408member
    Apple's lineup by the end of the year.





    Mac mini- Core Solo 1.66Ghz Core Duo 2.0Ghz

    iMac- Merom 2.0Ghz/2.33Ghz (conroe too hot)

    Powermac- 2.13Ghz/2.4Ghz Conroe Woodcrest 2.67Ghz x2

    Xserve- 2.4/2.67Ghz Woodcrest



    Macbook- same as mini

    Macbook Pro- same as iMac
  • Reply 32 of 175
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shanmugam

    how abt merom and yonah?



    is Yonah & Conore PIN Compatible, i guess Merom & yonah are PIN compatible ...




    Merom and Yonah uses (the same) Socket 479 and works on existing motherboards. Conroe uses Socket 775 and only works on the 304 revision of the Intel Bad Axe motherboard so far, IIRC.



    Why shouldn't Conroe fit in the iMac? Didn't the G5 have the same heat output?
  • Reply 33 of 175
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,408member
    Quote:

    Why shouldn't Conroe fit in the iMac? Didn't the G5 have the same heat output?



    I'm assuming the heat output was around 50 watts. However that casing was also thicker. Apple has reduced the internal volume of the ICD iMacs and that worries me somewhat.



    They could put a Conroe in but I wonder if they're going to take the risk.
  • Reply 34 of 175
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    For whatever reason, I've assumed that Conroe would be too hot for iMac. It would be awesome if they could get one in though.
  • Reply 35 of 175
    Some of them are clocked really low. I think they're cool.
  • Reply 36 of 175
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Oh that AMD acquiring 20% marketshare in desktop chips as well as servers must have hurt.
  • Reply 37 of 175
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Booga

    I think this lineup would probably be a bad idea. For the type of thing most PowerMacs are used for, a Woodcrest would make it too expensive and not offer much in return. I think Conroes will go all the way from iMac to PowerMac to xServe, then maybe a high-end "Pro" version of the PowerMac and xServe with Woodcrests just in case anyone wants 4 processors.



    I think the target market and current pricing for PowerMac and Xserve is exactly the reason that the Apple servers and workstations will have to go all-quad, unless they add lower cost products in both lines. I don't think it makes sense to have dual core workstations at their current prices when much of the consumer line-up is also dual core. Everyone else's dual processor product in those price ranges will soon likely be replaced with a dual-dual core. at the same prices, a dual-only product would be uncompetitive in the market.



    And frankly, Apple's servers aren't worth what they are asking and needs a four core unit, yesterday, to compete. Apple's single-proc-only unit starts at $3k, HP's single processor 1U unit, expandable to dual-dual, starts at $1300. Even with the server operating system, it is still a $1k disparity for a less expandable unit. The HP Opteron 1U unit is available as a quad for less than the price of Apple's dual.
  • Reply 38 of 175
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    Oh that AMD acquiring 20% marketshare in desktop chips as well as servers must have hurt.



    Well...thanks to AMD, we're getting these Intel chips earlier. Competition is good.
  • Reply 39 of 175
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    Just glad my mini has a socketed processor. I'll be there to scoop up a T2600 next year for a song.



    Whoa. We can drop them in like we used to be able to? Sweet. Totally. Sweet. That means almost the whole thing is upgradeable besides the bus: the CPU, RAM, and now these days graphics, since the connection is so fast. Excellente.
  • Reply 40 of 175
    thttht Posts: 5,367member
    I'm still a firm believer in:



    Woodcrest in July/August

    Conroe in August/September

    Merom September/October



    It sounds like Otellini has decided to truly write off Pentium 4 and take the financial loss though. I think they would have been able to compete in the server market with Dempsey/Bensley for a quarter if not longer, and nurse the margins as long as possible. Moving up ICM by a month or 2 pretty much means they are going to take a steep profit reduction this quarter, Q3, and hope to start growing in Q4.



    I agree with hmurchison on the lineup, with perhaps a couple of alternatives:



    Mac mini using 1.66/1.83 GHz Core Duo or 1.6 GHz Allendale

    iMac using 2.0/2.33 GHz Merom or 1.86/2.13 GHz Allendale (2 MB L2 Conroe or Core E6300/E6400)

    Mac Pro using 2.4/2.66 GHz Conroe for single socket bottom two configs and 3 GHz Woodcrest for 2 socket high end (quad on Glidewell)

    Xserve using 2.66/3.0 GHz Woodcrest for 2 socket (quads on Bensley)

    Mac Book using 1.83/2 GHz Yonah or 1.66/1.83 Merom

    Mac Book Pro using 2/2.33 GHz Merom



    The Allendale "Conroe" chips maybe too hot for the Mac mini or iMac, but they'd be cheaper than Merom and as cheap as Yonah.



    There's also a single core 1 MB L2 Conroe in the works codenamed Millville. This will probably cost Intel $10 to fab selling for $80. I can very easily imagine a capable <$300 system with this chip or Apple putting it in a Mac mini for $400.



    Intel's quad CPUs (2 Conroes or Allendales in an MCM) won't be coming until Q4. It's an option, but I'm still hesitant on for what purpose Apple would use an 8 core system for. The Xserve might be viable but the desktops, not quite. The multiprocessor speedup just isn't going to be very good regardless of any architecture (ie, affordable architecture) they use. I rather they double the cache and crank the clock.
Sign In or Register to comment.