Except for some pint-size manufacturer that I may not be aware of, Apple will the first company to offer all it's personal computers as fully 64-bit compliant from the hardware to the OS. That rocks!
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
Apparently, the BIOS wasn't ready for it. Once the BIOS is updated those machimes should function better.
I don't see why they wouldn't have another release with the iPhone. A majority of its features were already covered at Macworld, so there won't be as much time spent on it as most would think, I believe.
This is not a time spending issue. The iPhone is a whole new little device and its release is considered as one of the most important ones for years. In such cases Apple generally leaves the product to have its time and shine on the scene for some weeks or a month. There could be exceptions of course, but I doubt that we would see a major overhaul of the existing lines in the same month as the iPhone release.
Why bother waiting for the display change? If they're making an update as it is, and have the displays, why wouldn't they put 'em in?
We don't know if they have them. And if they have them we don't know how much time it will take to go to the production lines. Also there is the rather neglected price issue. These displays still are expensive and would probably appear only as a BTO option.
As I said previously, Apple is known to give a new product its time to show off. I would expect the schedule is to not synchronize LED displays and iPhone on the same month, let alone in a span of a few days, despite what the rumor mill says. But Apple had some surprises lately and I could be wrong.
Well, Sony said that their 11" OLED panel will ship this year. Which is of course too small for MBPs but it could be useful for a sub-notebook. Although it is unclear whether Sony is willing to sell the panel to third parties.
Does anyone know the new RAM limit of the Santa Rosa platform?
One of the fabled new features is the break of the 3GB RAM limit, which is a problem when Apple e.g. recommends 4GB minimum for Final Cut Studio 2. With more even better.
I tried to have a look at the Intel PM965 chipset specs and from what I can tell the RAM limit is a whopping 4(!)GB now. So we're going from 3 to 4. Great... \
Is this true? Can someone correct me?
I really had hoped we finally see a laptop that could be upgraded to 8GB at some point (in a year or two) when we want to use more RAM hungry applications (e.g. for virtualization). 4GB is not going to cut it in 2 years... And I'd like a notebook to last me 3-4 years.
Does anyone know the new RAM limit of the Santa Rosa platform?
One of the fabled new features is the break of the 3GB RAM limit, which is a problem when Apple e.g. recommends 4GB minimum for Final Cut Studio 2. With more even better.
I tried to have a look at the Intel PM965 chipset specs and from what I can tell the RAM limit is a whopping 4(!)GB now. So we're going from 3 to 4. Great... \
Is this true? Can someone correct me?
I really had hoped we finally see a laptop that could be upgraded to 8GB at some point (in a year or two) when we want to use more RAM hungry applications (e.g. for virtualization). 4GB is not going to cut it in 2 years... And I'd like a notebook to last me 3-4 years.
(Edit typo)
The current 94PM chipset can address 4GB. Every manufacturer, save for Apple, advertises a 4GB limit. However, since a small part of that RAM is used for something else?I can't recall what it was?you will get slightly less than 4GB RAM. I can't tell you why Apple artificially limits the maximum to 3GB. Perhaps for stability reasons. I really couldn't tell you.
I believe the Crestline (965PM) chipset will be able to address 2 channels of 4GB each, but that is just speculation on my part. I've posted the question at AnandTech a few days ago. No luck yet.
Dammit! I just came to reply after diligently reading hte entire document to see that you posted the page number. I'll have to remember to read more carefully.
It's Intel's site and it says 4GB. You can't get anymore 'actual factual' than that.
Actually, per my understanding, it's 8 GB at 667 MHz or 4 GB at 800 MHz.
Thanks for that Chucker!
What's the advantage of Santa Rosa then for a future MBP? A slightly faster bus? Yawn...
I can see the point for MBs with Santa Rosa's better integrated graphics, but with a dedicated GPU all that remains for MPBs is a slightly faster bus - not really worth it. Not really future proof then.
Too bad. For some weird reason I thought Santa Rosa was a 64bit platform...
What's the advantage of Santa Rosa then for a future MBP? A slightly faster bus? Yawn...
I can see the point for MBs with Santa Rosa's better integrated graphics, but with a dedicated GPU all that remains for MPBs is a slightly faster bus - not really worth it. Not really future proof then.
Too bad. For some weird reason I thought Santa Rosa was a 64bit platform...
Did you not read the above posts?
Thanks to IntlHarvester, we know that Santa Rosa's 965 "Crestline" chipset maxs out at 4GB, just like the current 945 "Calistoga" chipset.
There are two Santa Rosa offering with a 533MHz FSB. They are the Celeron and ULV Merom based CPUs. All the others?the others Apple will surely be using considering their current Merom offerings?use an 800MHz FSB.
Santa Rosa is a 64-bit platform.
The benefits seem slight, unless Robson turns out to be spectacular, but since intel is offering this tech cheaper than Napa there is a benefit to the increase, and sets up Apple for a drop-in upgrade to the next chip a few month later.
I suspect, like others, that the MacBook will stay with Napa platform, while the MacBook Pros get this upgrade at WWDC. This will potentially allow Apple to use it's remaining non-socket-P Meroms with the MacBook line for a 0.16GHz or 0.33GHz speed upgrade at the current price-point. This last paragraph is speculation on my part.
What's the advantage of Santa Rosa then for a future MBP? A slightly faster bus? Yawn...
Have you not been reading previous posts? Not only does the bus speed increase, but graphics are improved, wireless reception is doubled, among other things. Here's a good article on it: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2985&p=1
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT
For some weird reason I thought Santa Rosa was a 64bit platform...
Well, I'm not sure if we know that. It could still have the 32-bit addressing issue (that causes the 3GB limit).
Anyway, I hope you guys weren't expecting Santa Rosa to be super revolutionary -- just normal Intel incrementalism. Even the IGP doesn't seem like it's going to be a huge improvement (for games).
We don't know if they have them. And if they have them we don't know how much time it will take to go to the production lines.
Apple is known to give a new product its time to show off.
We do know that they have the displays, there have been a number of reports of the order being made, and judging by past times to make mediocre refreshes like this (no major overhauls, but not terribly small either), Apple very well could have them done to announce at WWDC. Again, I stress that it's not a major upgrade, so the mention of it doesn't have to be at the forefront of the keynote... it could be a 5-7, 10 max, minute spiel, and move on to other things, like perhaps a push for AppleTV or other new releases, such as iPhone. Jobs has a way to make certain things in a keynotes stand out more than others in just his presentation of it, and I would expect that he'd be able to use that for something like this.
Let's visit the Santa Rosa 'benefits' for new MBPs:
- Faster Bus Speed
That seems to be a real benefit. On paper. Yet AnandTech's media encoding speed tests suggest a speed boost of exactly: NIL. 667MHz bus tests have exactly the same encoding times as the 800MHz bus. Seems the bus is not the real bottle neck. Maybe the HD is?
3D renders were sped up by around 5-6%. A bit, but not much and far less than the 20% bus speed improvement would suggest.
- Improved Graphics
Totally irrelevant to MacBook Pros as they do not use the integrated graphics.
- Faster Wireless
Not a benefit either, quoting from AnandTech: "Later versions of Intel's Napa Centrino platform began shipping with 802.11n support, which steals some of Santa Rosa's thunder."
You don't need Santa Rosa for 802,11n.
- Flash Memory Buffer
It has been said that Apple is not going to use this. So likely no benefit there either.
The AnandTech article sums it up:
"It's not too difficult to feel let down by Santa Rosa; there's simply no tangible performance improvement for the vast majority of applications."
"If you already have a decent laptop, we wouldn't rush out to replace it anytime soon."
Initially everyone was so upbeat about Santa Rosa but it now seems that for MacBook Pros there's really hardly any benefit. A tiny few things here and there, but nothing much to write home about. It's a small evolutionary upgrade still not breaking the 4GB RAM limit.
It'll be good for the plain MacBooks and the Mac mini but not for MacBook Pros.
Personally I'm in the market for a new MacBook Pro. But as I have a need to use Mac and Linux pro apps (each wanting 2+ GB of RAM) I was really hoping to be able to do that in parallel via virtualization. I don't like having to reboot all the time especially if you use apps in parallel tweaking data back and forth. But to run these apps in parallel I really need more than 4GB RAM. As the new MBPs will still not support this, I'm probably no longer in the MBP market... Maybe a Mac Pro then - if Apple ever gets round to upgrade the pro graphic card options. I'm not investing in a high-end card that's 1 1/2 years old.
Sorry if I seem ranting, I'm just a bit bummed by the rather bleak near future prospects...
If I remember right, the bus speed can be either 800 or 667, depending on whether you use 4 or 8 gigs of RAM. I believe there are now 4 slots for RAM, so using 2 gig sticks, you could get as much as 8, rounded down to 7 after Apple's remapping or whatever.
Also, it's not really the 802.11n that was so surprising about the wireless improvement, but that its range is doubled - you can access a network that would normally fizz out around 1,500 ft. almost a mile away, for example.
Comments
Except for some pint-size manufacturer that I may not be aware of, Apple will the first company to offer all it's personal computers as fully 64-bit compliant from the hardware to the OS. That rocks!
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
Apparently, the BIOS wasn't ready for it. Once the BIOS is updated those machimes should function better.
Too soon for OLED?
Way, way. (unfortunately.)
I don't see why they wouldn't have another release with the iPhone. A majority of its features were already covered at Macworld, so there won't be as much time spent on it as most would think, I believe.
This is not a time spending issue. The iPhone is a whole new little device and its release is considered as one of the most important ones for years. In such cases Apple generally leaves the product to have its time and shine on the scene
Why bother waiting for the display change? If they're making an update as it is, and have the displays, why wouldn't they put 'em in?
We don't know if they have them. And if they have them we don't know how much time it will take to go to the production lines. Also there is the rather neglected price issue. These displays still are expensive and would probably appear only as a BTO option.
As I said previously, Apple is known to give a new product its time to show off. I would expect the schedule is to not synchronize LED displays and iPhone on the same month, let alone in a span of a few days, despite what the rumor mill says. But Apple had some surprises lately and I could be wrong.
Way, way. (unfortunately.)
Well, Sony said that their 11" OLED panel will ship this year. Which is of course too small for MBPs but it could be useful for a sub-notebook. Although it is unclear whether Sony is willing to sell the panel to third parties.
http://www.oled-info.com/sony/sony_t..._tvs_this_year
One of the fabled new features is the break of the 3GB RAM limit, which is a problem when Apple e.g. recommends 4GB minimum for Final Cut Studio 2. With more even better.
I tried to have a look at the Intel PM965 chipset specs and from what I can tell the RAM limit is a whopping 4(!)GB now. So we're going from 3 to 4. Great...
Is this true? Can someone correct me?
I really had hoped we finally see a laptop that could be upgraded to 8GB at some point (in a year or two) when we want to use more RAM hungry applications (e.g. for virtualization). 4GB is not going to cut it in 2 years... And I'd like a notebook to last me 3-4 years.
(Edit typo)
Does anyone know the new RAM limit of the Santa Rosa platform?
One of the fabled new features is the break of the 3GB RAM limit, which is a problem when Apple e.g. recommends 4GB minimum for Final Cut Studio 2. With more even better.
I tried to have a look at the Intel PM965 chipset specs and from what I can tell the RAM limit is a whopping 4(!)GB now. So we're going from 3 to 4. Great...
Is this true? Can someone correct me?
I really had hoped we finally see a laptop that could be upgraded to 8GB at some point (in a year or two) when we want to use more RAM hungry applications (e.g. for virtualization). 4GB is not going to cut it in 2 years... And I'd like a notebook to last me 3-4 years.
(Edit typo)
The current 94PM chipset can address 4GB. Every manufacturer, save for Apple, advertises a 4GB limit. However, since a small part of that RAM is used for something else?I can't recall what it was?you will get slightly less than 4GB RAM. I can't tell you why Apple artificially limits the maximum to 3GB. Perhaps for stability reasons. I really couldn't tell you.
I believe the Crestline (965PM) chipset will be able to address 2 channels of 4GB each, but that is just speculation on my part. I've posted the question at AnandTech a few days ago. No luck yet.
Apparently it's still 4GB (minus the device mapping, which Apple rounds down to 3GB).
Do you have a source for this info?
http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/...087_334087.pdf
See pg 30.
(Also, I read @ the Inq or somewhere that Intel was working on a platform designed for 'mobile workstations', which I assume would mean RAM support.)
Yes, I do
http://cache-www.intel.com/cd/00/00/...087_334087.pdf
See pg 30.
Dammit! I just came to reply after diligently reading hte entire document to see that you posted the page number. I'll have to remember to read more carefully.
It's Intel's site and it says 4GB. You can't get anymore 'actual factual' than that.
Thanks for the link.
Actually, per my understanding, it's 8 GB at 667 MHz or 4 GB at 800 MHz.
Thanks for that Chucker!
What's the advantage of Santa Rosa then for a future MBP? A slightly faster bus? Yawn...
I can see the point for MBs with Santa Rosa's better integrated graphics, but with a dedicated GPU all that remains for MPBs is a slightly faster bus - not really worth it. Not really future proof then.
Too bad. For some weird reason I thought Santa Rosa was a 64bit platform...
Thanks for that Chucker!
What's the advantage of Santa Rosa then for a future MBP? A slightly faster bus? Yawn...
I can see the point for MBs with Santa Rosa's better integrated graphics, but with a dedicated GPU all that remains for MPBs is a slightly faster bus - not really worth it. Not really future proof then.
Too bad. For some weird reason I thought Santa Rosa was a 64bit platform...
Did you not read the above posts?
Thanks to IntlHarvester, we know that Santa Rosa's 965 "Crestline" chipset maxs out at 4GB, just like the current 945 "Calistoga" chipset.
There are two Santa Rosa offering with a 533MHz FSB. They are the Celeron and ULV Merom based CPUs. All the others?the others Apple will surely be using considering their current Merom offerings?use an 800MHz FSB.
Santa Rosa is a 64-bit platform.
The benefits seem slight, unless Robson turns out to be spectacular, but since intel is offering this tech cheaper than Napa there is a benefit to the increase, and sets up Apple for a drop-in upgrade to the next chip a few month later.
I suspect, like others, that the MacBook will stay with Napa platform, while the MacBook Pros get this upgrade at WWDC. This will potentially allow Apple to use it's remaining non-socket-P Meroms with the MacBook line for a 0.16GHz or 0.33GHz speed upgrade at the current price-point. This last paragraph is speculation on my part.
What's the advantage of Santa Rosa then for a future MBP? A slightly faster bus? Yawn...
Have you not been reading previous posts? Not only does the bus speed increase, but graphics are improved, wireless reception is doubled, among other things. Here's a good article on it: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2985&p=1
For some weird reason I thought Santa Rosa was a 64bit platform...
It is.
It is.
Well, I'm not sure if we know that. It could still have the 32-bit addressing issue (that causes the 3GB limit).
Anyway, I hope you guys weren't expecting Santa Rosa to be super revolutionary -- just normal Intel incrementalism. Even the IGP doesn't seem like it's going to be a huge improvement (for games).
We don't know if they have them. And if they have them we don't know how much time it will take to go to the production lines.
Apple is known to give a new product its time to show off.
We do know that they have the displays, there have been a number of reports of the order being made, and judging by past times to make mediocre refreshes like this (no major overhauls, but not terribly small either), Apple very well could have them done to announce at WWDC. Again, I stress that it's not a major upgrade, so the mention of it doesn't have to be at the forefront of the keynote... it could be a 5-7, 10 max, minute spiel, and move on to other things, like perhaps a push for AppleTV or other new releases, such as iPhone. Jobs has a way to make certain things in a keynotes stand out more than others in just his presentation of it, and I would expect that he'd be able to use that for something like this.
Have you not been reading previous posts?
Let's visit the Santa Rosa 'benefits' for new MBPs:
- Faster Bus Speed
That seems to be a real benefit. On paper. Yet AnandTech's media encoding speed tests suggest a speed boost of exactly: NIL. 667MHz bus tests have exactly the same encoding times as the 800MHz bus. Seems the bus is not the real bottle neck. Maybe the HD is?
3D renders were sped up by around 5-6%. A bit, but not much and far less than the 20% bus speed improvement would suggest.
- Improved Graphics
Totally irrelevant to MacBook Pros as they do not use the integrated graphics.
- Faster Wireless
Not a benefit either, quoting from AnandTech: "Later versions of Intel's Napa Centrino platform began shipping with 802.11n support, which steals some of Santa Rosa's thunder."
You don't need Santa Rosa for 802,11n.
- Flash Memory Buffer
It has been said that Apple is not going to use this. So likely no benefit there either.
The AnandTech article sums it up:
"It's not too difficult to feel let down by Santa Rosa; there's simply no tangible performance improvement for the vast majority of applications."
"If you already have a decent laptop, we wouldn't rush out to replace it anytime soon."
Initially everyone was so upbeat about Santa Rosa but it now seems that for MacBook Pros there's really hardly any benefit. A tiny few things here and there, but nothing much to write home about. It's a small evolutionary upgrade still not breaking the 4GB RAM limit.
It'll be good for the plain MacBooks and the Mac mini but not for MacBook Pros.
Personally I'm in the market for a new MacBook Pro. But as I have a need to use Mac and Linux pro apps (each wanting 2+ GB of RAM) I was really hoping to be able to do that in parallel via virtualization. I don't like having to reboot all the time especially if you use apps in parallel tweaking data back and forth. But to run these apps in parallel I really need more than 4GB RAM. As the new MBPs will still not support this, I'm probably no longer in the MBP market... Maybe a Mac Pro then - if Apple ever gets round to upgrade the pro graphic card options. I'm not investing in a high-end card that's 1 1/2 years old.
Sorry if I seem ranting, I'm just a bit bummed by the rather bleak near future prospects...
Also, it's not really the 802.11n that was so surprising about the wireless improvement, but that its range is doubled - you can access a network that would normally fizz out around 1,500 ft. almost a mile away, for example.