The Intel Core Duo has proven itself as a processor in the previous gen iMac and Minis. Whether or not it's sold as a desktop or mobile CPU is inconsequential.
How do you figure? They released the fastest iMacs to date today. Where are they losing specs?
Huh? Do you think every current PC today sells with a Conroe processor? I'm sorry, sir, but they do not.
No they don't. You're getting your panties in a bunch over absolutely nothing.
I love it when some clown decides to take a paragraph apart in pieces and attack it word by word.
The differences, and intended use for the processors was determined by intel. One is substantially more powerful, and made for the desktop. The other is made for laptops. It's that simple mike. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it. I'm not the one upset that has processor envy. I'm not an iMac user. I could give a fuck. I'm just stating facts. I'll use pictures.
I thought the C2Ds were supposed to run on the 965 Broadwater chipset. But I see Apple's store lists the low end model as sporting the GMA 950 with a C2D.
The differences, and intended use for the processors was determined by intel. One is substantially more powerful, and made for the desktop. The other is made for laptops. It's that simple mike. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it. I'm not the one upset that has processor envy. I'm not an iMac user. I could give a fuck. I'm just stating facts. I'll use pictures.
Perhaps you should look at benchmarks before mouthing off...
There's really very little difference and in some tests Merom beats conroe but either way it's usually minor and probably because of system differences in the test. Describing Conroe as 'substantially more powerful' is way off the mark.
Agreed. This is absurd. There is no reason why they couldn't put the Meroms in the MBP's and stick Conroes in the iMacs. While I won't go buy a Dell, I'm seriously considering buying a used MBP for the interim until Apple gets its ducks in a row.
I've never seen a company buck business norms the way Apple does...
EDIT: Apparently, it's not confirmed that these are Merom based. I'll hold my tongue until further proof is provided.
hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the MBP just came out 7 months ago...how can you already expect completely new processors?
I do not understand why they would do such a stupiud thing: DDR is a technology that works best in pairs...
There is nothing special about DDR that needs pairs. The bandwidth of DDR2-667 matches that of the CPU bus, so there's not much benefit to running dual channel mode unless you are running the integrated graphics.
Is it still ok to enter the wild speculation & prediction debate?
Here's my wild prediction:
With iMac upgraded to Mermon C2D, the MBP looks terribly unattractive & dated
- so this will get the C2D treatment real soon now
- comparing it's prices, even with the upgrade, it's still wildly overpriced
- just compare a 17" iMac with a 17" MBP (which internally must be nearly the same)
- even allowing for the nice metal box, this doesn't seem like good value
- so the MBP must also get a large price drop (say $200 - $400 more than the equiv iMac)
- this leaves a gap at the top, which should be filled with a new 19" MBP, with Hi-end nVidia graphics for ~$2000
This is good, because having 3 in a range is always good, just ask Wendy's
Having got that out the way, my next prediction is for the Mac
- even though the iMac is great, I still think there's a need for a good desktop machine without built-in Monitor, priced below the MacPro
- because for a lot of people the MacPro is overkill - it's a high-end workstation
- using the Conroe, will give it a little bit extra speed compared to the iMac
- up to 3GHz
- and it can offer better graphics options than the iMac.
- does it take away sales from the iMac? - sure, - but it will also take away sales from Dell etc, which is what Apple needs to do.
With Quad Core C2Ds (Kentsfield/Clovertown) coming next year (late this year?) then, without a Mac, the gap between the iMac & the MacPro is just too big
(assuming they use the Quad Core in the Mac Pro)
The MacBook, could do with a small price cut, and an extra screen size or two
- a 15" would help bridge the gap to the MBP, and give people the choice of Metal/Plastic, Good/Bad graphics etc
- a smaller size, 12" or ever 10" would be cute
Overall, I've been impressed with Apple over the last year, in it's attempts to turn itself from a niche, boutique player, into a mainstream alternative, so that's why I think things like the Mac, and the cheaper MBPs have just got to happen. It's all about give the consumer choice.
BTW, the Mac Mini, as an entry level machine, is way too over priced, so perhaps Apple needs to do something there, like drop the price, change to form factor, or introduce a Mac Nano or something
but the 7300 has a worse fill rate, making it slower for Aperture/Motion/core imagery stuff.
So was your previous post.
I don't think that one single figure makes much difference in the grand scheme. The fill rate may be theoretical or marketing number, not the actual performance, and the overall actual performance seems to be significantly better in 7300 for the Mac.
Comments
How did this get to be a iPhoto/Picasa thread?
Focus, people!
But we've got nothing to whinge about with the new iMacs!
The Intel Core Duo has proven itself as a processor in the previous gen iMac and Minis. Whether or not it's sold as a desktop or mobile CPU is inconsequential.
How do you figure? They released the fastest iMacs to date today. Where are they losing specs?
Huh? Do you think every current PC today sells with a Conroe processor? I'm sorry, sir, but they do not.
No they don't. You're getting your panties in a bunch over absolutely nothing.
I love it when some clown decides to take a paragraph apart in pieces and attack it word by word.
The differences, and intended use for the processors was determined by intel. One is substantially more powerful, and made for the desktop. The other is made for laptops. It's that simple mike. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it. I'm not the one upset that has processor envy. I'm not an iMac user. I could give a fuck. I'm just stating facts. I'll use pictures.
I thought the C2Ds were supposed to run on the 965 Broadwater chipset. But I see Apple's store lists the low end model as sporting the GMA 950 with a C2D.
What gives?
What are ther performance differences between the 24's Nvidia and the ATi in the 20"?
The differences, and intended use for the processors was determined by intel. One is substantially more powerful, and made for the desktop. The other is made for laptops. It's that simple mike. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it. I'm not the one upset that has processor envy. I'm not an iMac user. I could give a fuck. I'm just stating facts. I'll use pictures.
Perhaps you should look at benchmarks before mouthing off...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=99466
There's really very little difference and in some tests Merom beats conroe but either way it's usually minor and probably because of system differences in the test. Describing Conroe as 'substantially more powerful' is way off the mark.
Agreed. This is absurd. There is no reason why they couldn't put the Meroms in the MBP's and stick Conroes in the iMacs. While I won't go buy a Dell, I'm seriously considering buying a used MBP for the interim until Apple gets its ducks in a row.
I've never seen a company buck business norms the way Apple does...
EDIT: Apparently, it's not confirmed that these are Merom based. I'll hold my tongue until further proof is provided.
hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the MBP just came out 7 months ago...how can you already expect completely new processors?
According to the Apple store, one of the slots takes a 2GB stick, and the other a 1GB.
I do not understand why they would do such a stupiud thing: DDR is a technology that works best in pairs...
hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the MBP just came out 7 months ago...how can you already expect completely new processors?
Are you kidding? That's not that wild in the PC world.
hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the MBP just came out 7 months ago...how can you already expect completely new processors?
I hope you're joking because intel imacs and the mbp were intro-ed at the same time.
I do not understand why they would do such a stupiud thing: DDR is a technology that works best in pairs...
There is nothing special about DDR that needs pairs. The bandwidth of DDR2-667 matches that of the CPU bus, so there's not much benefit to running dual channel mode unless you are running the integrated graphics.
The 7300 is worse than the X1600 in the last revision, although it'll be fine for most people.
For OpenGL, 7300 is apparently better than X1600 by a decent margin, which should mean that the 7300 is better for OS X.
C2D yonah & merom beats P4 3Ghz ... that shd be powerful enough for many (though not for every one)
Because Apple got Intel to put a lot of development into Firewire, and then pissed everybody off with their licencing scheme.
Wow, where did you pull that one out?
"I've never seen a company buck business norms the way Apple does..."
The only sensible thing you said.
So let's see:
IBM drops pc's
Dell lossing ground
Intel laying off
HP in trouble
GM on verge of bankruptcy
Ford joining the discontent
But Apple just keeps a growing in innovations, products, sales, service, support, stature?
Thank heavens, that Apple is above the norm.
word big bird
Do you think its worth the 300 bucks to up it to 2.33 Ghz from 2.16 Ghz?
The MHz myth is not a myth when its the exact same CPU otherwise...
So 2.16 vs 2.33 = only 8% faster, which doesn't seem worth it to me.
I ordered earlier today. 24" standard config but upgraded graphics.
Here's my wild prediction:
With iMac upgraded to Mermon C2D, the MBP looks terribly unattractive & dated
- so this will get the C2D treatment real soon now
- comparing it's prices, even with the upgrade, it's still wildly overpriced
- just compare a 17" iMac with a 17" MBP (which internally must be nearly the same)
- even allowing for the nice metal box, this doesn't seem like good value
- so the MBP must also get a large price drop (say $200 - $400 more than the equiv iMac)
- this leaves a gap at the top, which should be filled with a new 19" MBP, with Hi-end nVidia graphics for ~$2000
This is good, because having 3 in a range is always good, just ask Wendy's
Having got that out the way, my next prediction is for the Mac
- even though the iMac is great, I still think there's a need for a good desktop machine without built-in Monitor, priced below the MacPro
- because for a lot of people the MacPro is overkill - it's a high-end workstation
- using the Conroe, will give it a little bit extra speed compared to the iMac
- up to 3GHz
- and it can offer better graphics options than the iMac.
- does it take away sales from the iMac? - sure, - but it will also take away sales from Dell etc, which is what Apple needs to do.
With Quad Core C2Ds (Kentsfield/Clovertown) coming next year (late this year?) then, without a Mac, the gap between the iMac & the MacPro is just too big
(assuming they use the Quad Core in the Mac Pro)
The MacBook, could do with a small price cut, and an extra screen size or two
- a 15" would help bridge the gap to the MBP, and give people the choice of Metal/Plastic, Good/Bad graphics etc
- a smaller size, 12" or ever 10" would be cute
Overall, I've been impressed with Apple over the last year, in it's attempts to turn itself from a niche, boutique player, into a mainstream alternative, so that's why I think things like the Mac, and the cheaper MBPs have just got to happen. It's all about give the consumer choice.
BTW, the Mac Mini, as an entry level machine, is way too over priced, so perhaps Apple needs to do something there, like drop the price, change to form factor, or introduce a Mac Nano or something
For OpenGL, 7300 is apparently better than X1600 by a decent margin, which should mean that the 7300 is better for OS X.
Ok, that's a little too vague to mean anything...
but the 7300 has a worse fill rate, making it slower for Aperture/Motion/core imagery stuff.
Ok, that's a little too vague to mean anything...
but the 7300 has a worse fill rate, making it slower for Aperture/Motion/core imagery stuff.
So was your previous post.
I don't think that one single figure makes much difference in the grand scheme. The fill rate may be theoretical or marketing number, not the actual performance, and the overall actual performance seems to be significantly better in 7300 for the Mac.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=140