This thread, if you read the article, CONTRADICTS the months of discussion, in claiming that C2X is Woodcrest.
That's why I asked, is this new info?
And thanks to those who have answered: it sounds like MISinfo.
My bad. I Originally thought this was the The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread, not realsing AI had statrted another thread with the same info rolled into it.
And we were doing so good at keeping clutter down about it too.
I think the confusion of Core Duo Extreme, and woodcrest may be in reference to the 20%, or 40% lower wattage version of woodcrest that intel had mentioned previously. There were articles about this other woodcrest processor about a month ago, and all it is is probably a Conroe that can be used in dual sockets. I'm merely guessing of course, but it's possible that was the woodcrest reference. I just remember it used a lot less power than the current ones, and ran cooler also.
I think the confusion of Core Duo Extreme, and woodcrest may be in reference to the 20%, or 40% lower wattage version of woodcrest that intel had mentioned previously. There were articles about this other woodcrest processor about a month ago, and all it is is probably a Conroe that can be used in dual sockets. I'm merely guessing of course, but it's possible that was the woodcrest reference. I just remember it used a lot less power than the current ones, and ran cooler also.
Woodcrest will use a lot less power than the current Xeons which are still power hungry Netburst architecture chips for the most part. The exception being a low power Xeon based on Yonah, which barely anyone uses as it's also slower than almost every server class chip. And Opterons are faster and cooler in that server space anyway.
Mac Pro uses Woodcrest on the whole range, low model with 1 chip and top with 2 (the Quad)
iMac goes Conroe and switches internal design (again!) to desktop ram to match its new desktop cpu and chipset
new eMac and the Mac mini keep the bottom end ticking over
MacBook Pro goes Merom ASAP still using ATI's graphics cards
MacBook clings to Yonah until a new chipset with substantially improved onboard graphics comes out for Merom
What might happen instead:
Mac Pro uses Conroe (argh!) and although it'll be a strong machine, the ghost of the Quad will haunt us at least until next year! (the Quad is dead, long live the Quad?)
iMac stays Yonah in some daft move to "keep the gap" between the consumer and pro desktops / Intel offers a sweet discount deal which goes straight to Apple's profits
new eMac and Mac mini will basically keep the bottom end ticking over regardless, though just how much they'll be beneath the other models is all about the Yonah>Merom>Conroe transitions for iMac, MBP etc.
MacBook Pro goes Merom and <gulp> Intel graphics!?!?!
MacBook lingers on Yonah for ages and we all start upgrading them to Merom ourselves!
Come on Apple, do it right. The Yonah's been great so far, but don't let them Wintel folk ride off into the distance re: Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest. We expect our Pro Macs to come with industry leading hardware. You can do it!
'Apple introduces the Mac (non-Pro) with Conroe and cube like form plus new cheaper Cinema displays' to the wish list and 'Apple removes the ATi graphics from the iMac for Intel Integrated' for the what might happen if it's a disaster list.
Woodcrest will use a lot less power than the current Xeons which are still power hungry Netburst architecture chips for the most part. The exception being a low power Xeon based on Yonah, which barely anyone uses as it's also slower than almost every server class chip. And Opterons are faster and cooler in that server space anyway.
I didn't say less power than current Xeons, I'm saying less power than the first batch of woodcrests. There were articles on it about a month ago. There are refrences to it many pages back in the PowerMac thread somwhere.
fuyutsuki if "what might happen" happens. I'll sell all my old macs, and forget the platform ever existed.
fuyutsuki if "what might happen" happens. I'll sell all my old macs, and forget the platform ever existed.
Ouch! Good luck with Ubuntu then.
I'm actually looking forward to Leopard even more than the new 64 bit hardware later this year. But I guess that's because I can afford it a little easier than a Mac Pro with or without Woodcrest!
OK. Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are all Core 2 chips. Core 2 is simply the brand name for these things.
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon chip (at least that's the branding), but it is based on the Core 2 architecture, as this gives some significant performance gains in some circumstances, over the current Xeon architecture. It's also the most expensive of the lot because of those performance gains (bigger cache etc).
Merom, Conroe (Core 2 Duo/Extreme) and Woodcrest (Xeon) are based of the Core microarchitecture, also known as NGMA. The Core Duo (Yonah) architecture has no official name.
There are no such thing as a Xeon microarchitecture, the current Xeon CPUs are based on the NetBurst architecture. As far as I know, the Woodcrest has the same cache levels as the rest of the NGMA chips, apart from the low end which has just 2 MB. The high end multiprocessor CPUs are still based on NetBurst and employ a fairly handsome amount of L3 cache.
So, in short. There are no Core2 microarchtecture, there are no Xeon microarchitecture. They are just brand names. All the new CPUs are based of the Core/NGMA microarchitecture, with some small differences between the cores.
What I want to happen:Mac Pro uses Woodcrest on the whole range, low model with 1 chip and top with 2 (the Quad) iMac goes Conroe and switches internal design (again!) to desktop ram to match its new desktop cpu and chipset new eMac and the Mac mini keep the bottom end ticking over MacBook Pro goes Merom ASAP still using ATI's graphics cards MacBook clings to Yonah until a new chipset with substantially improved onboard graphics comes out for Merom
What might happen instead:Mac Pro uses Conroe (argh!) and although it'll be a strong machine, the ghost of the Quad will haunt us at least until next year! (the Quad is dead, long live the Quad?) iMac stays Yonah in some daft move to "keep the gap" between the consumer and pro desktops / Intel offers a sweet discount deal which goes straight to Apple's profits new eMac and Mac mini will basically keep the bottom end ticking over regardless, though just how much they'll be beneath the other models is all about the Yonah>Merom>Conroe transitions for iMac, MBP etc. MacBook Pro goes Merom and <gulp> Intel graphics!?!?! MacBook lingers on Yonah for ages and we all start upgrading them to Merom ourselves!
Come on Apple, do it right. The Yonah's been great so far, but don't let them Wintel folk ride off into the distance re: Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest. We expect our Pro Macs to come with industry leading hardware. You can do it!
I agree with your wish list, I like it. The 'what might happen instead' doesn't worry me to much. Consider this. Dell and most pc vendors will introduce conroe based desktops soon and I've seen it suggested that they may cost under $1000. That would humble the iMac packing only a ICD at a cost starting at $1200. One reason the iMac may not have gotten a speed bump yet is that Apple is busy redesigning for Conroe. Let's hope so.
Ideally, Apple is going to offer Woodcrest across the Pro lineup in single and dual configs...*unsoldered*. But who am I kidding, right?
Whoah ... an easily *upgradeable* Pro Mac ... we can but dream! 8)
backtomac: I think this is indeed the case. The Yonah was the ideal chip to kick off Apple's Intel transition. I think the timing was all worked out precisely so that it could be used and we'd all be eager for it. But Yonah is 32 bit and there's no desktop version: it is a transitional chip for Intel as well as Apple. And from here on in it's Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all the way (until the quad core models!)
That's what I really like about being on Intel now. The PACE!
AMD* are great competition who I sincerely hope are about to unveil something awesome of their own, to keep up the pressure in this two horse race which Apple are now riding for all that it's worth!
*Better declare my interest as a former AMD fanboy back in my Windows days. My first gen 800MHz slot Athlon still loiters on a shelf.
Whoah ... an easily *upgradeable* Pro Mac ... we can but dream! 8)
backtomac: I think this is indeed the case. The Yonah was the ideal chip to kick off Apple's Intel transition. I think the timing was all worked out precisely so that it could be used and we'd all be eager for it. But Yonah is 32 bit and there's no desktop version: it is a transitional chip for Intel as well as Apple. And from here on in it's Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all the way (until the quad core models!)
That's what I really like about being on Intel now. The PACE!
AMD* are great competition who I sincerely hope are about to unveil something awesome of their own, to keep up the pressure in this two horse race which Apple are now riding for all that it's worth!
*Better declare my interest as a former AMD fanboy back in my Windows days. My first gen 800MHz slot Athlon still loiters on a shelf.
My wife has an HP with Athlon chip. It was and still is a fine chip. I do think though that Intel is going to get the better of AMD with their core 2 chips. At least for a little while.
The interesting problem then is where they put Conroe ?
If they stick with laptop parts in the iMac then it's going to be more expensive and slower than other desktops based on Conroe.
If they don't do a lower end MacPro with Conroe and use Woodcrest then they've only got expensive workstation class machines.
Conroe must go somewhere otherwise Apple's machines will be uncompetitive again.
iMac needs to go Conroe and I really expect it will. The form factor could handle a G5 so a Conroe should be just fine, and cheaper / faster than an equivalent Merom.
The problem with mixing Conroe and Woodcrest in the Mac Pro line is that they're quite different chips on the outside and require different chipsets and sockets. A whole new model of low end Mac Pro's, which people here call out for as simply the "Mac" or a new Cube could fill a hole and be the headless Conroe Mac which some will certainly desire. I'm not sure how this would fit in with Apple's policy of a clean model lineup though. They have been expanding SKU's recently with the multiple colour iPods and MacBooks I suppose, but I doubt we'll see this machine.
It would have been less confusing had the article stated:
Quote:
The world's largest chipmaker also divulged the clock speeds of two upcoming Core 2 Extreme processor and introduced a new low-voltage Core Duo chip.
During the presentation, Intel senior vice president Anand Chandrasekher ALSO officially unveiled the company's 965 Express Chipset, formerly code-named "Broadwater."
The P965 Express chipset, formerly code-named Broadwater, will work with Intel's new Core 2 Duo desktop processor, also known as Conroe, which is due to go on sale next month. The chipset has started shipping in volume to PC makers already, Intel said.
Chipsets are collections of chips that surround the main processor and connect it to other parts of the motherboard. Together, the new desktop chips will offer a big boost in PC performance, including better graphics, while also using less power, said Anand Chandrasekher, an Intel senior vice president, in a speech at the start of Computex trade show in Taipei.
The interesting problem then is where they put Conroe ?
If they stick with laptop parts in the iMac then it's going to be more expensive and slower than other desktops based on Conroe.
If they don't do a lower end MacPro with Conroe and use Woodcrest then they've only got expensive workstation class machines.
Conroe must go somewhere otherwise Apple's machines will be uncompetitive again.
I vote for iMac. It may require a redesign but it would be worth the effort. If the form factor has to change a little to accomodate a desktop cpu so be it. Performace should take priority over form factor IMO.
MacBook clings to Yonah until a new chipset with substantially improved onboard graphics comes out for Merom
the G965, the broadwater with graphics version, will be out in a couple months, and is supposed to be quite a bit faster, and support more features, some important ones like hardware T&L.
I vote for iMac. It may require a redesign but it would be worth the effort. If the form factor has to change a little to accomodate a desktop cpu so be it. Performace should take priority over form factor IMO.
I don't see why you guy's stress that it actually needs a redesign to handle the conroe CPU. The thing had a G5 in it before as previously stated.
Nevertheless I think Apple is going to change the enclosures of their entire lineup regardless, and very soon anyway.
I don't see why you guy's stress that it actually needs a redesign to handle the conroe CPU. The thing had a G5 in it before as previously stated.
Nevertheless I think Apple is going to change the enclosures of their entire lineup regardless, and very soon anyway.
I don't know. Some have suggested that Merom is going in to iMac since it would definately not require a redesign. I feel that conroe would be better even if a redesign is necessary. It looks like Conroe has room to grow in speed that Merom does not.
In fact, another question... will Intel Core (Yonah) be discontinued, or be the budget option as Celeron is now? This might be what Apple need to differentiate Macbook from Macbook Pro, and Mac Pro from iMac/eMac?!?!
I think you're correct about yonah becoming the new celeron with Merom being the centrino replacement. I couldn't see intel using a cpu for 8 months then dropping it forever.
Comments
Originally posted by nagromme
This thread, if you read the article, CONTRADICTS the months of discussion, in claiming that C2X is Woodcrest.
That's why I asked, is this new info?
And thanks to those who have answered: it sounds like MISinfo.
My bad. I Originally thought this was the The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread, not realsing AI had statrted another thread with the same info rolled into it.
And we were doing so good at keeping clutter down about it too.
Originally posted by onlooker
I think the confusion of Core Duo Extreme, and woodcrest may be in reference to the 20%, or 40% lower wattage version of woodcrest that intel had mentioned previously. There were articles about this other woodcrest processor about a month ago, and all it is is probably a Conroe that can be used in dual sockets. I'm merely guessing of course, but it's possible that was the woodcrest reference. I just remember it used a lot less power than the current ones, and ran cooler also.
Woodcrest will use a lot less power than the current Xeons which are still power hungry Netburst architecture chips for the most part. The exception being a low power Xeon based on Yonah, which barely anyone uses as it's also slower than almost every server class chip. And Opterons are faster and cooler in that server space anyway.
- Mac Pro uses Woodcrest on the whole range, low model with 1 chip and top with 2 (the Quad)
- iMac goes Conroe and switches internal design (again!) to desktop ram to match its new desktop cpu and chipset
- new eMac and the Mac mini keep the bottom end ticking over
- MacBook Pro goes Merom ASAP still using ATI's graphics cards
- MacBook clings to Yonah until a new chipset with substantially improved onboard graphics comes out for Merom
What might happen instead:- Mac Pro uses Conroe (argh!) and although it'll be a strong machine, the ghost of the Quad will haunt us at least until next year! (the Quad is dead, long live the Quad?)
- iMac stays Yonah in some daft move to "keep the gap" between the consumer and pro desktops / Intel offers a sweet discount deal which goes straight to Apple's profits
- new eMac and Mac mini will basically keep the bottom end ticking over regardless, though just how much they'll be beneath the other models is all about the Yonah>Merom>Conroe transitions for iMac, MBP etc.
- MacBook Pro goes Merom and <gulp> Intel graphics!?!?!
- MacBook lingers on Yonah for ages and we all start upgrading them to Merom ourselves!
Come on Apple, do it right. The Yonah's been great so far, but don't let them Wintel folk ride off into the distance re: Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest. We expect our Pro Macs to come with industry leading hardware. You can do it!I'd add
'Apple introduces the Mac (non-Pro) with Conroe and cube like form plus new cheaper Cinema displays' to the wish list and 'Apple removes the ATi graphics from the iMac for Intel Integrated' for the what might happen if it's a disaster list.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Woodcrest will use a lot less power than the current Xeons which are still power hungry Netburst architecture chips for the most part. The exception being a low power Xeon based on Yonah, which barely anyone uses as it's also slower than almost every server class chip. And Opterons are faster and cooler in that server space anyway.
I didn't say less power than current Xeons, I'm saying less power than the first batch of woodcrests. There were articles on it about a month ago. There are refrences to it many pages back in the PowerMac thread somwhere.
fuyutsuki if "what might happen" happens. I'll sell all my old macs, and forget the platform ever existed.
Originally posted by onlooker
fuyutsuki if "what might happen" happens. I'll sell all my old macs, and forget the platform ever existed.
Ouch! Good luck with Ubuntu then.
I'm actually looking forward to Leopard even more than the new 64 bit hardware later this year. But I guess that's because I can afford it a little easier than a Mac Pro with or without Woodcrest!
Originally posted by henryblackman
OK. Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are all Core 2 chips. Core 2 is simply the brand name for these things.
Woodcrest is considered a Xeon chip (at least that's the branding), but it is based on the Core 2 architecture, as this gives some significant performance gains in some circumstances, over the current Xeon architecture. It's also the most expensive of the lot because of those performance gains (bigger cache etc).
Merom, Conroe (Core 2 Duo/Extreme) and Woodcrest (Xeon) are based of the Core microarchitecture, also known as NGMA. The Core Duo (Yonah) architecture has no official name.
There are no such thing as a Xeon microarchitecture, the current Xeon CPUs are based on the NetBurst architecture. As far as I know, the Woodcrest has the same cache levels as the rest of the NGMA chips, apart from the low end which has just 2 MB. The high end multiprocessor CPUs are still based on NetBurst and employ a fairly handsome amount of L3 cache.
So, in short. There are no Core2 microarchtecture, there are no Xeon microarchitecture. They are just brand names. All the new CPUs are based of the Core/NGMA microarchitecture, with some small differences between the cores.
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
What I want to happen:Mac Pro uses Woodcrest on the whole range, low model with 1 chip and top with 2 (the Quad)
iMac goes Conroe and switches internal design (again!) to desktop ram to match its new desktop cpu and chipset
new eMac and the Mac mini keep the bottom end ticking over
MacBook Pro goes Merom ASAP still using ATI's graphics cards
MacBook clings to Yonah until a new chipset with substantially improved onboard graphics comes out for Merom
What might happen instead:Mac Pro uses Conroe (argh!) and although it'll be a strong machine, the ghost of the Quad will haunt us at least until next year! (the Quad is dead, long live the Quad?)
iMac stays Yonah in some daft move to "keep the gap" between the consumer and pro desktops / Intel offers a sweet discount deal which goes straight to Apple's profits
new eMac and Mac mini will basically keep the bottom end ticking over regardless, though just how much they'll be beneath the other models is all about the Yonah>Merom>Conroe transitions for iMac, MBP etc.
MacBook Pro goes Merom and <gulp> Intel graphics!?!?!
MacBook lingers on Yonah for ages and we all start upgrading them to Merom ourselves!
Come on Apple, do it right. The Yonah's been great so far, but don't let them Wintel folk ride off into the distance re: Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest. We expect our Pro Macs to come with industry leading hardware. You can do it!
I agree with your wish list, I like it. The 'what might happen instead' doesn't worry me to much. Consider this. Dell and most pc vendors will introduce conroe based desktops soon and I've seen it suggested that they may cost under $1000. That would humble the iMac packing only a ICD at a cost starting at $1200. One reason the iMac may not have gotten a speed bump yet is that Apple is busy redesigning for Conroe. Let's hope so.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ideally, Apple is going to offer Woodcrest across the Pro lineup in single and dual configs...*unsoldered*. But who am I kidding, right?
Whoah ... an easily *upgradeable* Pro Mac ... we can but dream! 8)
backtomac: I think this is indeed the case. The Yonah was the ideal chip to kick off Apple's Intel transition. I think the timing was all worked out precisely so that it could be used and we'd all be eager for it. But Yonah is 32 bit and there's no desktop version: it is a transitional chip for Intel as well as Apple. And from here on in it's Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all the way (until the quad core models!)
That's what I really like about being on Intel now. The PACE!
AMD* are great competition who I sincerely hope are about to unveil something awesome of their own, to keep up the pressure in this two horse race which Apple are now riding for all that it's worth!
*Better declare my interest as a former AMD fanboy back in my Windows days. My first gen 800MHz slot Athlon still loiters on a shelf.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ideally, Apple is going to offer Woodcrest across the Pro lineup in single and dual configs...*unsoldered*. But who am I kidding, right?
The interesting problem then is where they put Conroe ?
If they stick with laptop parts in the iMac then it's going to be more expensive and slower than other desktops based on Conroe.
If they don't do a lower end MacPro with Conroe and use Woodcrest then they've only got expensive workstation class machines.
Conroe must go somewhere otherwise Apple's machines will be uncompetitive again.
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
Whoah ... an easily *upgradeable* Pro Mac ... we can but dream! 8)
backtomac: I think this is indeed the case. The Yonah was the ideal chip to kick off Apple's Intel transition. I think the timing was all worked out precisely so that it could be used and we'd all be eager for it. But Yonah is 32 bit and there's no desktop version: it is a transitional chip for Intel as well as Apple. And from here on in it's Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all the way (until the quad core models!)
That's what I really like about being on Intel now. The PACE!
AMD* are great competition who I sincerely hope are about to unveil something awesome of their own, to keep up the pressure in this two horse race which Apple are now riding for all that it's worth!
*Better declare my interest as a former AMD fanboy back in my Windows days. My first gen 800MHz slot Athlon still loiters on a shelf.
My wife has an HP with Athlon chip. It was and still is a fine chip. I do think though that Intel is going to get the better of AMD with their core 2 chips. At least for a little while.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The interesting problem then is where they put Conroe ?
If they stick with laptop parts in the iMac then it's going to be more expensive and slower than other desktops based on Conroe.
If they don't do a lower end MacPro with Conroe and use Woodcrest then they've only got expensive workstation class machines.
Conroe must go somewhere otherwise Apple's machines will be uncompetitive again.
iMac needs to go Conroe and I really expect it will. The form factor could handle a G5 so a Conroe should be just fine, and cheaper / faster than an equivalent Merom.
The problem with mixing Conroe and Woodcrest in the Mac Pro line is that they're quite different chips on the outside and require different chipsets and sockets. A whole new model of low end Mac Pro's, which people here call out for as simply the "Mac" or a new Cube could fill a hole and be the headless Conroe Mac which some will certainly desire. I'm not sure how this would fit in with Apple's policy of a clean model lineup though. They have been expanding SKU's recently with the multiple colour iPods and MacBooks I suppose, but I doubt we'll see this machine.
The world's largest chipmaker also divulged the clock speeds of two upcoming Core 2 Extreme processor and introduced a new low-voltage Core Duo chip.
During the presentation, Intel senior vice president Anand Chandrasekher ALSO officially unveiled the company's 965 Express Chipset, formerly code-named "Broadwater."
This MacWorld article makes it clearer:
The P965 Express chipset, formerly code-named Broadwater, will work with Intel's new Core 2 Duo desktop processor, also known as Conroe, which is due to go on sale next month. The chipset has started shipping in volume to PC makers already, Intel said.
Chipsets are collections of chips that surround the main processor and connect it to other parts of the motherboard. Together, the new desktop chips will offer a big boost in PC performance, including better graphics, while also using less power, said Anand Chandrasekher, an Intel senior vice president, in a speech at the start of Computex trade show in Taipei.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The interesting problem then is where they put Conroe ?
If they stick with laptop parts in the iMac then it's going to be more expensive and slower than other desktops based on Conroe.
If they don't do a lower end MacPro with Conroe and use Woodcrest then they've only got expensive workstation class machines.
Conroe must go somewhere otherwise Apple's machines will be uncompetitive again.
I vote for iMac. It may require a redesign but it would be worth the effort. If the form factor has to change a little to accomodate a desktop cpu so be it. Performace should take priority over form factor IMO.
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
MacBook clings to Yonah until a new chipset with substantially improved onboard graphics comes out for Merom
the G965, the broadwater with graphics version, will be out in a couple months, and is supposed to be quite a bit faster, and support more features, some important ones like hardware T&L.
Originally posted by backtomac
I vote for iMac. It may require a redesign but it would be worth the effort. If the form factor has to change a little to accomodate a desktop cpu so be it. Performace should take priority over form factor IMO.
I don't see why you guy's stress that it actually needs a redesign to handle the conroe CPU. The thing had a G5 in it before as previously stated.
Nevertheless I think Apple is going to change the enclosures of their entire lineup regardless, and very soon anyway.
Originally posted by onlooker
I don't see why you guy's stress that it actually needs a redesign to handle the conroe CPU. The thing had a G5 in it before as previously stated.
Nevertheless I think Apple is going to change the enclosures of their entire lineup regardless, and very soon anyway.
I don't know. Some have suggested that Merom is going in to iMac since it would definately not require a redesign. I feel that conroe would be better even if a redesign is necessary. It looks like Conroe has room to grow in speed that Merom does not.
Originally posted by henryblackman
In fact, another question... will Intel Core (Yonah) be discontinued, or be the budget option as Celeron is now? This might be what Apple need to differentiate Macbook from Macbook Pro, and Mac Pro from iMac/eMac?!?!
I think you're correct about yonah becoming the new celeron with Merom being the centrino replacement. I couldn't see intel using a cpu for 8 months then dropping it forever.