Where did they get this? From reviews at Anand, more on the order of 5-10%, 20% best case scenario. It's a shame really IMO as Conroe is Intel's best chip as far as bang for the buck.
They're probably comparing the speed of the fastest Merom chip to the slowest Yonah chip used in the Mac.
That's what "up to" usually means. It's 100% marketingspeak.
IMHO, the 23" iMac HD may be a sign of things to come. With Steve's love of all things HD, he probably wants to get high-def screens in front of as many customers as possible, especially if Apple is looking to sell HD offerings of TV Shows/Movies in the iTunes Store.
They can release all the "True Video iPods" in the world and sell shows to watch on a 3-5" screen for $9.99/$14.99, but I think there's a chance of them pulling out the big guns and offering high-def versions of these shows for playback on machines like the iMac HD.
I see the iMac updates and the MacMini updates as Apple saying, "Hey look, now all of our computers can easily handle playing 1080p high def material at 24fps. By the way, here's our new giant library of music videos/tv shows/movies that you can download and play at home or on your iPods!" Granted the previous iterations of these machines could MOSTLY handle playing 1080p material, but it was sketchy on some of the lower-end machines.
Maybe you can enlighten us and tell us what is faster and suitable for it's intended market.
It was in the next paragraph: They're all roughly equivalent. Woodcrest is basically the same chip as Conroe but for multi-CPU machines (and using a new chipset and memory standard that helps RAM capacity but hurts RAM performance). Conroe can only have one CPU socket (though even that will get you up to four cores later this year, as has been pointed out). Merom is equivalent to Conroe, though clocked a bit lower and with much better power management.
Under the hood they're all basically the same chip. Clock for clock they're all equivalent in speed. In fact, in a home-built desktop system, you'd probably *want*" Merom, because it's extremely quiet at stock speed, and extremely overclockable if you choose to push it (more so than Conroe with stock voltage/cooling).
The Core 2 Duo / Xeon 5100 family are all fantastic chips, which is why you see Intel putting them in every line as quickly as they can.
It was in the next paragraph: They're all roughly equivalent. Woodcrest is basically the same chip as Conroe but for multi-CPU machines (and using a new chipset and memory standard that helps RAM capacity but hurts RAM performance). Conroe can only have one CPU socket (though even that will get you up to four cores later this year, as has been pointed out). Merom is equivalent to Conroe, though clocked a bit lower and with much better power management.
Under the hood they're all basically the same chip. Clock for clock they're all equivalent in speed. In fact, in a home-built desktop system, you'd probably *want*" Merom, because it's extremely quiet at stock speed, and extremely overclockable if you choose to push it (more so than Conroe with stock voltage/cooling).
I think you are trivializing the faster FSB that conroe and woodcrest have as well as the much higher clock speeds they achieve. The performace of Merom is good but only modestly(generally on the order of 5-10%) better than current Yonah chips. The lack of a more substantial increase in performance (the 20% Intel told us to expect) has been attributed to Meroms slow (relatively speaking) FSB which is felt to hamper performance. Quiet and cool are nice and desirable features for laptop chips but not essential for desktop chips IMO.
If the 20" monitor moves down to the bottom spot, which is possible given the reduced price of 20" LCD's since the 20" iMac was introduced, then I will have a hard time resisting purchasing one. If the Mac Mini gets a decent boost and a Super Drive in the low end then they I'd be tempted to get one of each.
So what about the MacBook Pro getting a Merom chip?
This news kind of upsets me because if they intend to use part of their stock of Meroms in the iMac, then that much less stock (of an already hampered availability) is left to be used in the MBP. This leads me to believe that they are holding off a CPU upgrade to the MBP in lieu of the Santa Rosa next year. Just speculating of course, and I'm happy for those of you waiting for an iMac announcement, but I really want a damn Merom in a MBP!
I would have had the same concern if I were part of Apple's management team, of course they know more than we do about their contracts with Intel and the number of chips that are going to be made available to them. But we have to remember that a Apple has made quite operation a big focus since the introduction of the Cube, and received criticism when they have not delivered on it.
If the 20" monitor moves down to the bottom spot, which is possible given the reduced price of 20" LCD's since the 20" iMac was introduced, then I will have a hard time resisting purchasing one. If the Mac Mini gets a decent boost and a Super Drive in the low end then they I'd be tempted to get one of each.
Are you suggesting they'll get rid of the 17" iMac, cause I highly doubt that if you are?
Sources to cite? You are joking, right? It appears that the same rumor comes from MacOSXrumors too, that has been pretty accurate in many cases. Their server does not respond for the moment, they get probably some heavy traffic right now.
Incredible, still not responding. DoS attack from Apple Legal?
I Hope they get rid of the chin because it looks like crap,I also hope they dont go cheapo on the GPU like they did in Mini & Mac Pro. Wouldnt it suck if they get rid of ati and use a Intel GPU? knowing Apple it could happen.
If you want a rational explaination, the "chin" breaks the Golden Ratio, used as a design tenet since the ancient Greeks. If the monitor had an even border all the way around, it would be close, but it's not.
They weren't even the same measure. The IBM advertised numbers are "typical", the Intel numbers are "max".
No, the numbers I am quoting are approximate maximal power requirements. Look for example here. It is no wonder why the iMac never got a 2.2 GHz G5 FX. From the table you can place the 2.1 GHz G5 it got in its last PPC incarnation well below 60 Watts (max. power). So no, even the 20" model cannot handle the heat of a Conroe without killing its silence.
The merom imacs will be a compromise of style over performance value, compared to similar priced Conroe PC's.
Also, any suggestions of the removal of the 17" is absurd?, it is NEEDED for Education, but can be offered to the general public. So you could have an IG 17" at $999, then dedicated 20/23" models.
Still, unless there is a Conroe 23", ill stick with a MB for my Dull 24"!
Conroe was never going to go into the iMac or Mac mini, and I haven't seen any credible commentator suggest otherwise. Merom offers equivalent performance at much lower power usage / heat consumption, and it's a drop-in replacement for the current Yonah chips.
It does not as far as I can tell. The FSB seriously hampers it's performance compared to the Conroes 1066 MHz bus. And it's way more expensive.
In any case, the Santa Rosa Socket P versions of Merom will have a 800MHz bus and will reach 2.4 GHz. Not much improvement in my eyes for a year and more.
Comments
Woodcrest is not really a higher-performing chip, and should not be positioned as such.
"Up to 40 percent speed increases"
Where did they get this? From reviews at Anand, more on the order of 5-10%, 20% best case scenario. It's a shame really IMO as Conroe is Intel's best chip as far as bang for the buck.
They're probably comparing the speed of the fastest Merom chip to the slowest Yonah chip used in the Mac.
That's what "up to" usually means. It's 100% marketingspeak.
If a 23" is introduced, could the 17" be dropped (maybe taking an education only spot)?
If this then means the 20" turns into the new low-end iMac and has the current 17" price tag, I'll be ordering up a 20" on release day.
IMHO, the 23" iMac HD may be a sign of things to come. With Steve's love of all things HD, he probably wants to get high-def screens in front of as many customers as possible, especially if Apple is looking to sell HD offerings of TV Shows/Movies in the iTunes Store.
They can release all the "True Video iPods" in the world and sell shows to watch on a 3-5" screen for $9.99/$14.99, but I think there's a chance of them pulling out the big guns and offering high-def versions of these shows for playback on machines like the iMac HD.
I see the iMac updates and the MacMini updates as Apple saying, "Hey look, now all of our computers can easily handle playing 1080p high def material at 24fps. By the way, here's our new giant library of music videos/tv shows/movies that you can download and play at home or on your iPods!" Granted the previous iterations of these machines could MOSTLY handle playing 1080p material, but it was sketchy on some of the lower-end machines.
Anyway, just my humble opinion.
2) Where are people getting the Aug. 12 date from? Is that just because it's a Tuesday in the Expo week, or are there some rumors I've missed?
It was in the next paragraph: They're all roughly equivalent. Woodcrest is basically the same chip as Conroe but for multi-CPU machines (and using a new chipset and memory standard that helps RAM capacity but hurts RAM performance). Conroe can only have one CPU socket (though even that will get you up to four cores later this year, as has been pointed out). Merom is equivalent to Conroe, though clocked a bit lower and with much better power management.
Under the hood they're all basically the same chip. Clock for clock they're all equivalent in speed. In fact, in a home-built desktop system, you'd probably *want*" Merom, because it's extremely quiet at stock speed, and extremely overclockable if you choose to push it (more so than Conroe with stock voltage/cooling).
The Core 2 Duo / Xeon 5100 family are all fantastic chips, which is why you see Intel putting them in every line as quickly as they can.
It was in the next paragraph: They're all roughly equivalent. Woodcrest is basically the same chip as Conroe but for multi-CPU machines (and using a new chipset and memory standard that helps RAM capacity but hurts RAM performance). Conroe can only have one CPU socket (though even that will get you up to four cores later this year, as has been pointed out). Merom is equivalent to Conroe, though clocked a bit lower and with much better power management.
Under the hood they're all basically the same chip. Clock for clock they're all equivalent in speed. In fact, in a home-built desktop system, you'd probably *want*" Merom, because it's extremely quiet at stock speed, and extremely overclockable if you choose to push it (more so than Conroe with stock voltage/cooling).
I think you are trivializing the faster FSB that conroe and woodcrest have as well as the much higher clock speeds they achieve. The performace of Merom is good but only modestly(generally on the order of 5-10%) better than current Yonah chips. The lack of a more substantial increase in performance (the 20% Intel told us to expect) has been attributed to Meroms slow (relatively speaking) FSB which is felt to hamper performance. Quiet and cool are nice and desirable features for laptop chips but not essential for desktop chips IMO.
See link below
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2808&p=1
Edit: Oooh, Ireland beat me to it by a couple of minutes.
So what about the MacBook Pro getting a Merom chip?
This news kind of upsets me because if they intend to use part of their stock of Meroms in the iMac, then that much less stock (of an already hampered availability) is left to be used in the MBP. This leads me to believe that they are holding off a CPU upgrade to the MBP in lieu of the Santa Rosa next year. Just speculating of course, and I'm happy for those of you waiting for an iMac announcement, but I really want a damn Merom in a MBP!
I would have had the same concern if I were part of Apple's management team, of course they know more than we do about their contracts with Intel and the number of chips that are going to be made available to them. But we have to remember that a Apple has made quite operation a big focus since the introduction of the Cube, and received criticism when they have not delivered on it.
If the 20" monitor moves down to the bottom spot, which is possible given the reduced price of 20" LCD's since the 20" iMac was introduced, then I will have a hard time resisting purchasing one. If the Mac Mini gets a decent boost and a Super Drive in the low end then they I'd be tempted to get one of each.
Are you suggesting they'll get rid of the 17" iMac, cause I highly doubt that if you are?
Sources to cite? You are joking, right? It appears that the same rumor comes from MacOSXrumors too, that has been pretty accurate in many cases. Their server does not respond for the moment, they get probably some heavy traffic right now.
Incredible, still not responding. DoS attack from Apple Legal?
No, the G5s were in the 45-55 Watts range, Conroe is around 60-65 Watts.
They weren't even the same measure. The IBM advertised numbers are "typical", the Intel numbers are "max".
I Hope they get rid of the chin because it looks like crap,I also hope they dont go cheapo on the GPU like they did in Mini & Mac Pro. Wouldnt it suck if they get rid of ati and use a Intel GPU? knowing Apple it could happen.
If you want a rational explaination, the "chin" breaks the Golden Ratio, used as a design tenet since the ancient Greeks. If the monitor had an even border all the way around, it would be close, but it's not.
Merom isn't 64-bit right?
It is.
They weren't even the same measure. The IBM advertised numbers are "typical", the Intel numbers are "max".
No, the numbers I am quoting are approximate maximal power requirements. Look for example here. It is no wonder why the iMac never got a 2.2 GHz G5 FX. From the table you can place the 2.1 GHz G5 it got in its last PPC incarnation well below 60 Watts (max. power). So no, even the 20" model cannot handle the heat of a Conroe without killing its silence.
Also, any suggestions of the removal of the 17" is absurd?, it is NEEDED for Education, but can be offered to the general public. So you could have an IG 17" at $999, then dedicated 20/23" models.
Still, unless there is a Conroe 23", ill stick with a MB for my Dull 24"!
Conroe was never going to go into the iMac or Mac mini, and I haven't seen any credible commentator suggest otherwise. Merom offers equivalent performance at much lower power usage / heat consumption, and it's a drop-in replacement for the current Yonah chips.
It does not as far as I can tell. The FSB seriously hampers it's performance compared to the Conroes 1066 MHz bus. And it's way more expensive.
In any case, the Santa Rosa Socket P versions of Merom will have a 800MHz bus and will reach 2.4 GHz. Not much improvement in my eyes for a year and more.