Intel to drop "Conroe" embargo this Friday

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 86
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cubert

    Hmmmm...."more instructions per clock cycle". Sounds an awful like when Apple first went with IBM. Where are you now, Intel doubters?



    I'll take lower Mhz and more complete instructions processed per clock cycle any damn day.
  • Reply 22 of 86
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wackybit

    Is the Core 2 Duo a 64bit processor or is it still a 32bit like core duo??? (but I heard that core duo was actually a 64bit but intel wouldn't say it)

    Any ideas?




    Core 2 Duo= 64bit

    Core Duo= 32bit



    Anyway... I won't be surpriced if Apple will use the slowest Conroes available in the next incarnation of the iMac (Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400; 1.86Ghz / 2.13Ghz).

    They still will be much faster than the same clocked Yonah processor currently used.



    If they use faster processors instead, Intels roadmap is much better than i've hoped for.
  • Reply 23 of 86
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    other than these CPUs, when we can expect



    MEROM??? will intel surprise us with Aug release & Availability?



    Yonah ...Merom

    Conroe

    Woodcrest

    ? (what is the name for new itanium?)



    now we got everthing
  • Reply 24 of 86
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,822member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shanmugam

    ? (what is the name for new itanium?)



    Does anyone even care about Itanium anymore? Isn't it dead?
  • Reply 25 of 86
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Wow, those 1.83Ghz Conroes are pretty spiffy for a cheap chip, beating all but the fastest Pentium Extreme. Why on earth would anyone buy a Pentium now?



    So, the question is, Conroe iMacs at WWDC too ?



    I really can't see Apple using Merom in the iMac.
  • Reply 26 of 86
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Hmmm... just a thought:



    iMac update as soon as next tuesday?
  • Reply 27 of 86
    pbpb Posts: 4,237member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aegisdesign



    I really can't see Apple using Merom in the iMac.




    And I am really still not convinced that it can take a Conroe without sacrificing much of its quiet operation.
  • Reply 28 of 86
    catman4d2catman4d2 Posts: 174member
    notice how alot of the pc sellers are ducking the megahertz war thing BY NOT LISTING THE MHZ SPEEDS OF THEIR CHIPS.... dell has been doing this!



    And other pc manufacturers,excuse me but i want to know what I am buying,I hope apple doesnt take on the ignorant trend. 0.2 cents



    once again I am Slightly of topic but just not enough to get flammed.
  • Reply 29 of 86
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    And I am really still not convinced that it can take a Conroe without sacrificing much of its quiet operation.



    Good point, although my G5 iMac is quite noisy, especially running carbon apps. It was quiet when I got it but Apple seem to have ramped up the fans on subsequent OS updates.
  • Reply 30 of 86
    pbpb Posts: 4,237member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aegisdesign

    Good point, although my G5 iMac is quite noisy, especially running carbon apps. It was quiet when I got it but Apple seem to have ramped up the fans on subsequent OS updates.



    This is something not unheard of. Apple did the same thing with older Aluminum Powerbooks because, I presume, they realized that the heat is too much and in the long term would hurt the machine (increasing probably repairs under warranty).



    I guess a Conroe would bring the iMac back to the G5 heat and noise era. Only a 23" model has hope to handle well a 60-65 W CPU without being a leaf blower.
  • Reply 31 of 86
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kolchak

    Now if only Apple would include upgradable CPUs in their mobos, then 3 months from introduction to obsolescence wouldn't be a threat anymore. But of course, we all know with Apple that that ain't gonna happen.



    Why not? So far they've done it with all intel macs but portables.
  • Reply 32 of 86
    Given that when the first intel iMac was released the chip prices were $294 for the 17" (1.83) and $423 for the 20" (2.0) that would make me believe that if they were to again release both 17" and 20" models with the Core 2 duo then we would see the 2.13GHz ($224) in the 17" and the 2.4GHz ($316) in the 20".



    Of course this does not take into effect heating issues (of which I am not knowledgable). Also, their is a possibility that (partially) due to the recent 17" education iMac we may see a 23" version using the 2.67GHz ($530) conroe chip and no 17" update.



    I could be wrong about the core duo price quotes from the first line but if I am right then it seems there is room for either some other quality upgrades or a small price drop in models. Basically just more flexibility for apple.
  • Reply 33 of 86
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    ...what do published Spot Prices for chips have to do with Apple who is buying chips on a daily basis..
  • Reply 34 of 86
    wackybitwackybit Posts: 11member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    Core 2 Duo= 64bit

    Core Duo= 32bit



    Anyway... I won't be surpriced if Apple will use the slowest Conroes available in the next incarnation of the iMac (Core 2 Duo E6300 and E6400; 1.86Ghz / 2.13Ghz).

    They still will be much faster than the same clocked Yonah processor currently used.



    If they use faster processors instead, Intels roadmap is much better than i've hoped for.




    Oh yeah baby!!! it's 64 bit! Since rumor says the MacBook Pro will receive a new casing when it is updated with a Core 2 Duo processor, I hope Ive puts in 4 RAM slots so some hardcore user with a lot of money (not me) can put in 8GBs of RAM!!! Maybe I'll put in 4GBs.....hehehe



    Dare to dream....
  • Reply 35 of 86
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    ...what do published Spot Prices for chips have to do with Apple who is buying chips on a daily basis..



    Just meant as a comparison
  • Reply 36 of 86
    The core duo's are turning out to be quite the little over-clockers. They were able to oc the Extreme X6800 from 2.93GHz to 4.0GHz with quality air cooling.



    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2795&p=18



    I don't know how well the Mac side will be for ocing, but damn...
  • Reply 37 of 86
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wackybit

    Oh yeah baby!!! it's 64 bit! Since rumor says the MacBook Pro will receive a new casing when it is updated with a Core 2 Duo processor, I hope Ive puts in 4 RAM slots so some hardcore user with a lot of money (not me) can put in 8GBs of RAM!!! Maybe I'll put in 4GBs.....hehehe



    Dare to dream....



    4 RAM slots? 2 GBs each? For what, $10,000 total?
  • Reply 38 of 86
    halsehalse Posts: 53member
    The Core 2 Extreme does not exceed 45 °C CPU temperature using the Intel retail cooler in an office environment.............You should care to enable SpeedStep, because it reduces the processor clock speed to 1.6 GHz when idle. This will cause the processor fan to drop its rotation speed to as little as 1,500 RPM. Eventually, we measured an average CPU temperature level of only 25°C (77°F). That's almost room temperature!





    from

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/..._64/page8.html
  • Reply 39 of 86
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by opuscroakus

    The core duo's are turning out to be quite the little over-clockers. They were able to oc the Extreme X6800 from 2.93GHz to 4.0GHz with quality air cooling.





    And the xtremesystems.com dudes went up to 5,2 GHz on liquid nitrogen. Any chance of Apple overclocking their chips?
  • Reply 40 of 86
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cubert

    Hmmmm...."more instructions per clock cycle". Sounds an awful like when Apple first went with IBM. Where are you now, Intel doubters?



    The "Intel doubters" really haven't been saying much since the actual units were offered for sale. Many of them were basing their arguments on the P4 architecture that was prevailing during the time of the architecture switch.



    Different time, comparing with different chips, the difference of three years can mean a lot in the microprocessor world. Core 2 has an additional execution unit and a lot shorter pipeline vs. any of the P4s that the G5 was competing against.
Sign In or Register to comment.