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 slots? That would be a downgrade. The G5 has 8 slots.
And I suspect Ive has absolutely nothing to do with motherboard features beyond picking the colour.
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.
And the Core 2 has a decent Vector engine and low memory latency which was somewhat unexpected back then so much of the criticism has died down.
In the meantime the PowerPC hasn't stood still either but it's not gone in the direction Apple have.
Why not? So far they've done it with all intel macs but portables.
I have to wonder just how much headroom Apple really gives you, though. Sure, you can pull the chip, but has Apple crippled the motherboard so a newer, faster chip wouldn't be much faster? I'll believe it when somebody tries a radical upgrade like that and gets the full speed boost.
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
4 slots? That would be a downgrade. The G5 has 8 slots.
How about a return to the bad, old days of the 9500/9600? 12 slots!
I have to wonder just how much headroom Apple really gives you, though. Sure, you can pull the chip, but has Apple crippled the motherboard so a newer, faster chip wouldn't be much faster? I'll believe it when somebody tries a radical upgrade like that and gets the full speed boost.
How about a return to the bad, old days of the 9500/9600? 12 slots!
Supposedly, someone had put a Conroe in a mini and it whipped the fastest G5 in media encoding, but no other tests were shown. There was an article about it posted several places in these forums. How believable they are, I don't know.
The number of slots is dictated by number of channels * number of memory modules they can put on a channel. The first is dictated by the memory controller, the second is dictated by the memory type used in the computer. More memory modules can be put in a system that uses registered memory as each module has its own line drivers, allowing more "fan-out" so more memory chips can run on the bus.
Supposedly, someone had put a Conroe in a mini and it whipped the fastest G5 in media encoding, but no other tests were shown. There was an article about it posted several places in these forums. How believable they are, I don't know.
That's comparing Apples to oranges, though. Don't compare a Conroe with a G5. I'd want to know how the Conroe-equipped Mini performs relative to another computer that comes stock with Conroe. Are you getting everything out of that Conroe? I doubt it, since the Mini's memory subsystem is slower, and perhaps the clock speed multiplier as well.
That's comparing Apples to oranges, though. Don't compare a Conroe with a G5. I'd want to know how the Conroe-equipped Mini performs relative to another computer that comes stock with Conroe. Are you getting everything out of that Conroe? I doubt it, since the Mini's memory subsystem is slower, and perhaps the clock speed multiplier as well.
Actually, it looks like it was a Merom in the mini.
I really don't know if a mini gets everything out of a Merom, but it looked to me to be a very significant improvement. I think it retained its labeled clock speed. If I find that article
BTW: there have been and will be a lot of comparisions of current and future systems with their previous counterparts. I think one may as well get over it. Despite architectural differences, the actual performance of apps are what matters in the end.
BTW: there have been and will be a lot of comparisions of current and future systems with their previous counterparts. I think one may as well get over it. Despite architectural differences, the actual performance of apps are what matters in the end.
Exactly. Comparing one Conroe computer to another, whilst interesting enough in the small differences isn't anyway as useful as comparing it's performance to previous generations of Macs be they Yonah, G4 or G5 based.
That's comparing Apples to oranges, though. Don't compare a Conroe with a G5. I'd want to know how the Conroe-equipped Mini performs relative to another computer that comes stock with Conroe. Are you getting everything out of that Conroe? I doubt it, since the Mini's memory subsystem is slower, and perhaps the clock speed multiplier as well.
Isn't this the case, though, for any CPU upgrade? I fail to see how this is any different than in the PC world.
Exactly. Comparing one Conroe computer to another, whilst interesting enough in the small differences isn't anyway as useful as comparing it's performance to previous generations of Macs be they Yonah, G4 or G5 based.
The question at hand was just how much improvement one could hope for by pulling the processor in an Intel Mac and replacing it with a faster model. In which case, comparing it with the G5s is completely irrelevant. Yes, it's faster than the G5. We knew that. What we don't know and what I want to know is if you took out say a 2GHz Intel processor and replaced it with a 3GHz model a year later, would the motherboard allow it to run applications as fast as an Intel Mac designed for the faster CPU? That's the question. If the increase is minimal because Apple's motherboard design won't allow larger multipliers or has a slow memory bus, then this whole thing about Apple now having upgradable CPUs is moot. It just wouldn't be worth swapping out the chips.
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
Isn't this the case, though, for any CPU upgrade? I fail to see how this is any different than in the PC world.
There's one major difference. In the PC world, if your motherboard is too slow, you can go out and buy a newer, faster one for $100 or so. With Macs, there is NO upgrade path. Apple's not going to sell you new replacement motherboards, not when they can force you to buy a whole, new system instead. And nobody else is going to sell Mac-compatible motherboards without incurring Apple's wrath.
The question as to whether or not the merom performs well versus the g5 (in the minis case, both were in an Apple computer but granted many factors were at play) is still a valid one though. Just because one question may be of particular interest to some people or even if that question was the whole point of the initial discussion does not stop other questions from being valid.
I for one am interested in any and all benchmarks of the new intel chips and will especially compare them to the g5 because that is my alternative until all of the apps that I use daily are universal.
The question at hand was just how much improvement one could hope for by pulling the processor in an Intel Mac and replacing it with a faster model.
It's not really at hand though is it. The only chip you can replace a Yonah with is another Yonah.
You can't stick a Conroe in an Intel Mac.
Merom's aren't shipping and only the lower end versions intended for Napa are pin compatible with Yonah.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
In which case, comparing it with the G5s is completely irrelevant. Yes, it's faster than the G5. We knew that.
That kind of presumes you're speaking for everyone. And you're wrong, the Intel chips aren't quicker for everyone, in particular Photoshop users.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
What we don't know and what I want to know is if you took out say a 2GHz Intel processor and replaced it with a 3GHz model a year later, would the motherboard allow it to run applications as fast as an Intel Mac designed for the faster CPU? That's the question. If the increase is minimal because Apple's motherboard design won't allow larger multipliers or has a slow memory bus, then this whole thing about Apple now having upgradable CPUs is moot. It just wouldn't be worth swapping out the chips.
The Mini has had 2.16Ghz Merom prototypes installed in it and it worked fine. Past that you'd need a crystal ball to predict what Apple and Intel are going to ship next year. Next spring though Intel are moving to Socket P and Santa Rosa so that's pretty much when Merom pin compatibility will tail off.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
There's one major difference. In the PC world, if your motherboard is too slow, you can go out and buy a newer, faster one for $100 or so. With Macs, there is NO upgrade path. Apple's not going to sell you new replacement motherboards, not when they can force you to buy a whole, new system instead. And nobody else is going to sell Mac-compatible motherboards without incurring Apple's wrath.
Personally I've never seen the logic behind that. If you've got to go out and buy a new CPU, Motherboard and quite probably faster RAM, then you may as well buy a faster computer and sell the old one. Damn sight easier and with Macs having better resale value, not that different financially.
It's not really at hand though is it. The only chip you can replace a Yonah with is another Yonah.
You can't stick a Conroe in an Intel Mac.
If you'd care to read upthread, this whole subdiscussion began when I bemoaned the non-upgradability of Apples CPUs. Someone claimed that they were upgradable, to which I questioned whether the motherboard could keep up. So you see, that IS the point at hand since nobody asked whether or not a Merom was faster than a G5. As I was trying to note before people jumped in without reading, that was an irrelevant tangent caused by somebody's misunderstanding. If you're saying they can't be upgraded cost-effectively, then you're effectively arguing against the guy who wrote all Intel Macs can have their processors upgraded.
Quote:
Personally I've never seen the logic behind that. If you've got to go out and buy a new CPU, Motherboard and quite probably faster RAM, then you may as well buy a faster computer and sell the old one. Damn sight easier and with Macs having better resale value, not that different financially.
I've gone through the revolving door of Mac upgrades more times in the last few years than I'd care to count. Anyone who goes around saying Macs have great resale value hasn't spent that much time on eBay. 17" Powerbooks with high resolution screens have been selling in the $1600 range, quite a drop from their $2500 price new early this year. And what's the big deal about having to buy faster RAM? Either way -- new motherboard or whole new computer -- you'll have to buy it. Because Apple isn't going to install enough in the stock configuration and only suckers pay Apple's ridiculous markup on BTO RAM.
[B] Someone claimed that they were upgradable, to which I questioned whether the motherboard could keep up. So you see, that IS the point at hand since nobody asked whether or not a Merom was faster than a G5. As I was trying to note before people jumped in without reading, that was an irrelevant tangent caused by somebody's misunderstanding. [quote]
You asked:
Quote:
Sure, you can pull the chip, but has Apple crippled the motherboard so a newer, faster chip wouldn't be much faster?
I posted a response that said that someone had tried it (though I got the chip wrong) and still got a significant performance boost. I didn't try to say that the performance was as good as replacing the main board. Was it really as much of a misunderstanding as you are saying? The G5 comment was just an aside that unfortunately only became a distraction. It sounds like the Merom FSB is the same as Yonah's so it would appear that the bus and memory performance aren't going to be any different for the first Meroms.
Quote:
I've gone through the revolving door of Mac upgrades more times in the last few years than I'd care to count. Anyone who goes around saying Macs have great resale value hasn't spent that much time on eBay.
I bought a base mini new and sold it on eBay 11 months later with only a 20% difference between purchase price and resale price, but that sale was before the Core Duo units were released. I bought a refurbed iMac and a couple months later, sold it at an insignificant loss. Notebooks might be a different matter, but given the switch, I can imagine Powerbook owners dumping their computers for MacBook Pros, making a bit of a glut. The loss is likely still less than a person selling any other 6mo old notebook.
Merom's aren't shipping and only the lower end versions intended for Napa are pin compatible with Yonah.
This is where you are wrong. All the Napa refresh Merom chips are pin-compatible with the Yonah, all the way up to 2,33 GHz. The Santa Rosa Socket P (800 MHz FSB) chips aren't due until March/April 2007, and are pretty irrelevant today.
There's one major difference. In the PC world, if your motherboard is too slow, you can go out and buy a newer, faster one for $100 or so. With Macs, there is NO upgrade path. Apple's not going to sell you new replacement motherboards, not when they can force you to buy a whole, new system instead. And nobody else is going to sell Mac-compatible motherboards without incurring Apple's wrath.
But how many people out there would actually go to this bother?
I just feel like you're talking about a small percentage of a small percentage.
Comments
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 slots? That would be a downgrade. The G5 has 8 slots.
And I suspect Ive has absolutely nothing to do with motherboard features beyond picking the colour.
Originally posted by JeffDM
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.
And the Core 2 has a decent Vector engine and low memory latency which was somewhat unexpected back then so much of the criticism has died down.
In the meantime the PowerPC hasn't stood still either but it's not gone in the direction Apple have.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
4 slots? That would be a downgrade. The G5 has 8 slots.
And I suspect Ive has absolutely nothing to do with motherboard features beyond picking the colour.
They were talking about the MacBook Pro, not the Mac Pro.
Originally posted by minderbinder
Why not? So far they've done it with all intel macs but portables.
I have to wonder just how much headroom Apple really gives you, though. Sure, you can pull the chip, but has Apple crippled the motherboard so a newer, faster chip wouldn't be much faster? I'll believe it when somebody tries a radical upgrade like that and gets the full speed boost.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
4 slots? That would be a downgrade. The G5 has 8 slots.
How about a return to the bad, old days of the 9500/9600? 12 slots!
Originally posted by Kolchak
I have to wonder just how much headroom Apple really gives you, though. Sure, you can pull the chip, but has Apple crippled the motherboard so a newer, faster chip wouldn't be much faster? I'll believe it when somebody tries a radical upgrade like that and gets the full speed boost.
How about a return to the bad, old days of the 9500/9600? 12 slots!
Supposedly, someone had put a Conroe in a mini and it whipped the fastest G5 in media encoding, but no other tests were shown. There was an article about it posted several places in these forums. How believable they are, I don't know.
The number of slots is dictated by number of channels * number of memory modules they can put on a channel. The first is dictated by the memory controller, the second is dictated by the memory type used in the computer. More memory modules can be put in a system that uses registered memory as each module has its own line drivers, allowing more "fan-out" so more memory chips can run on the bus.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Supposedly, someone had put a Conroe in a mini and it whipped the fastest G5 in media encoding, but no other tests were shown. There was an article about it posted several places in these forums. How believable they are, I don't know.
That's comparing Apples to oranges, though. Don't compare a Conroe with a G5. I'd want to know how the Conroe-equipped Mini performs relative to another computer that comes stock with Conroe. Are you getting everything out of that Conroe? I doubt it, since the Mini's memory subsystem is slower, and perhaps the clock speed multiplier as well.
Originally posted by Kolchak
That's comparing Apples to oranges, though. Don't compare a Conroe with a G5. I'd want to know how the Conroe-equipped Mini performs relative to another computer that comes stock with Conroe. Are you getting everything out of that Conroe? I doubt it, since the Mini's memory subsystem is slower, and perhaps the clock speed multiplier as well.
Actually, it looks like it was a Merom in the mini.
http://macenstein.com/default/archives/323
I haven't looked at it very closely.
I really don't know if a mini gets everything out of a Merom, but it looked to me to be a very significant improvement. I think it retained its labeled clock speed. If I find that article
BTW: there have been and will be a lot of comparisions of current and future systems with their previous counterparts. I think one may as well get over it. Despite architectural differences, the actual performance of apps are what matters in the end.
Originally posted by JeffDM
BTW: there have been and will be a lot of comparisions of current and future systems with their previous counterparts. I think one may as well get over it. Despite architectural differences, the actual performance of apps are what matters in the end.
Exactly. Comparing one Conroe computer to another, whilst interesting enough in the small differences isn't anyway as useful as comparing it's performance to previous generations of Macs be they Yonah, G4 or G5 based.
How much more can a faster processor do in such a small computer?
Originally posted by Kolchak
That's comparing Apples to oranges, though. Don't compare a Conroe with a G5. I'd want to know how the Conroe-equipped Mini performs relative to another computer that comes stock with Conroe. Are you getting everything out of that Conroe? I doubt it, since the Mini's memory subsystem is slower, and perhaps the clock speed multiplier as well.
Isn't this the case, though, for any CPU upgrade? I fail to see how this is any different than in the PC world.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Exactly. Comparing one Conroe computer to another, whilst interesting enough in the small differences isn't anyway as useful as comparing it's performance to previous generations of Macs be they Yonah, G4 or G5 based.
The question at hand was just how much improvement one could hope for by pulling the processor in an Intel Mac and replacing it with a faster model. In which case, comparing it with the G5s is completely irrelevant. Yes, it's faster than the G5. We knew that. What we don't know and what I want to know is if you took out say a 2GHz Intel processor and replaced it with a 3GHz model a year later, would the motherboard allow it to run applications as fast as an Intel Mac designed for the faster CPU? That's the question. If the increase is minimal because Apple's motherboard design won't allow larger multipliers or has a slow memory bus, then this whole thing about Apple now having upgradable CPUs is moot. It just wouldn't be worth swapping out the chips.
Originally posted by Flounder
Isn't this the case, though, for any CPU upgrade? I fail to see how this is any different than in the PC world.
There's one major difference. In the PC world, if your motherboard is too slow, you can go out and buy a newer, faster one for $100 or so. With Macs, there is NO upgrade path. Apple's not going to sell you new replacement motherboards, not when they can force you to buy a whole, new system instead. And nobody else is going to sell Mac-compatible motherboards without incurring Apple's wrath.
I for one am interested in any and all benchmarks of the new intel chips and will especially compare them to the g5 because that is my alternative until all of the apps that I use daily are universal.
Originally posted by Kolchak
The question at hand was just how much improvement one could hope for by pulling the processor in an Intel Mac and replacing it with a faster model.
It's not really at hand though is it. The only chip you can replace a Yonah with is another Yonah.
You can't stick a Conroe in an Intel Mac.
Merom's aren't shipping and only the lower end versions intended for Napa are pin compatible with Yonah.
Originally posted by Kolchak
In which case, comparing it with the G5s is completely irrelevant. Yes, it's faster than the G5. We knew that.
That kind of presumes you're speaking for everyone. And you're wrong, the Intel chips aren't quicker for everyone, in particular Photoshop users.
Originally posted by Kolchak
What we don't know and what I want to know is if you took out say a 2GHz Intel processor and replaced it with a 3GHz model a year later, would the motherboard allow it to run applications as fast as an Intel Mac designed for the faster CPU? That's the question. If the increase is minimal because Apple's motherboard design won't allow larger multipliers or has a slow memory bus, then this whole thing about Apple now having upgradable CPUs is moot. It just wouldn't be worth swapping out the chips.
The Mini has had 2.16Ghz Merom prototypes installed in it and it worked fine. Past that you'd need a crystal ball to predict what Apple and Intel are going to ship next year. Next spring though Intel are moving to Socket P and Santa Rosa so that's pretty much when Merom pin compatibility will tail off.
Originally posted by Kolchak
There's one major difference. In the PC world, if your motherboard is too slow, you can go out and buy a newer, faster one for $100 or so. With Macs, there is NO upgrade path. Apple's not going to sell you new replacement motherboards, not when they can force you to buy a whole, new system instead. And nobody else is going to sell Mac-compatible motherboards without incurring Apple's wrath.
Personally I've never seen the logic behind that. If you've got to go out and buy a new CPU, Motherboard and quite probably faster RAM, then you may as well buy a faster computer and sell the old one. Damn sight easier and with Macs having better resale value, not that different financially.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Apple's other option is to leave Yonah bump of the speed in the mini to 1.8GHz and 2.0GHz and drop the price 100 bucks.
Can Apple do this? I assume Intel will cease production of the Yonahs and use those rare 65nm fabs to their Core2 parts.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's not really at hand though is it. The only chip you can replace a Yonah with is another Yonah.
You can't stick a Conroe in an Intel Mac.
If you'd care to read upthread, this whole subdiscussion began when I bemoaned the non-upgradability of Apples CPUs. Someone claimed that they were upgradable, to which I questioned whether the motherboard could keep up. So you see, that IS the point at hand since nobody asked whether or not a Merom was faster than a G5. As I was trying to note before people jumped in without reading, that was an irrelevant tangent caused by somebody's misunderstanding. If you're saying they can't be upgraded cost-effectively, then you're effectively arguing against the guy who wrote all Intel Macs can have their processors upgraded.
Personally I've never seen the logic behind that. If you've got to go out and buy a new CPU, Motherboard and quite probably faster RAM, then you may as well buy a faster computer and sell the old one. Damn sight easier and with Macs having better resale value, not that different financially.
I've gone through the revolving door of Mac upgrades more times in the last few years than I'd care to count. Anyone who goes around saying Macs have great resale value hasn't spent that much time on eBay. 17" Powerbooks with high resolution screens have been selling in the $1600 range, quite a drop from their $2500 price new early this year. And what's the big deal about having to buy faster RAM? Either way -- new motherboard or whole new computer -- you'll have to buy it. Because Apple isn't going to install enough in the stock configuration and only suckers pay Apple's ridiculous markup on BTO RAM.
[B] Someone claimed that they were upgradable, to which I questioned whether the motherboard could keep up. So you see, that IS the point at hand since nobody asked whether or not a Merom was faster than a G5. As I was trying to note before people jumped in without reading, that was an irrelevant tangent caused by somebody's misunderstanding. [quote]
You asked:
Quote:
Sure, you can pull the chip, but has Apple crippled the motherboard so a newer, faster chip wouldn't be much faster?
I posted a response that said that someone had tried it (though I got the chip wrong) and still got a significant performance boost. I didn't try to say that the performance was as good as replacing the main board. Was it really as much of a misunderstanding as you are saying? The G5 comment was just an aside that unfortunately only became a distraction. It sounds like the Merom FSB is the same as Yonah's so it would appear that the bus and memory performance aren't going to be any different for the first Meroms.
Quote:
I've gone through the revolving door of Mac upgrades more times in the last few years than I'd care to count. Anyone who goes around saying Macs have great resale value hasn't spent that much time on eBay.
I bought a base mini new and sold it on eBay 11 months later with only a 20% difference between purchase price and resale price, but that sale was before the Core Duo units were released. I bought a refurbed iMac and a couple months later, sold it at an insignificant loss. Notebooks might be a different matter, but given the switch, I can imagine Powerbook owners dumping their computers for MacBook Pros, making a bit of a glut. The loss is likely still less than a person selling any other 6mo old notebook.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Merom's aren't shipping and only the lower end versions intended for Napa are pin compatible with Yonah.
This is where you are wrong. All the Napa refresh Merom chips are pin-compatible with the Yonah, all the way up to 2,33 GHz. The Santa Rosa Socket P (800 MHz FSB) chips aren't due until March/April 2007, and are pretty irrelevant today.
Originally posted by Ireland
What do you guys expect in iMac's next Jan & later this year?
Dude..., iMacs? Forget those, what we want are Intel PowerMacs already!
Originally posted by Kolchak
There's one major difference. In the PC world, if your motherboard is too slow, you can go out and buy a newer, faster one for $100 or so. With Macs, there is NO upgrade path. Apple's not going to sell you new replacement motherboards, not when they can force you to buy a whole, new system instead. And nobody else is going to sell Mac-compatible motherboards without incurring Apple's wrath.
But how many people out there would actually go to this bother?
I just feel like you're talking about a small percentage of a small percentage.