I compeltly agree with Ensoniq and yes, I know the cooling would better suit a Conroe in a Mac Pro tower style, but it's still possible in an iMac. I saw a benchmark test that said the Conroe using SpeedStep only goes between 35C and 45C from idle to load -- like I said, it's possible in an iMac.
In fact, the switch from Yonah to Conroe in the iMac costs Apple about $20 less on the 17" and $20 more on the 20", but with significantly higher performance. Apple could go with 1.86/2.13 for the iMac instead of 2.13/2.4 if they wanted to lower the iMac costs. But at the same price, the faster chips make more sense.
You seem to forget that if the iMac gets a Conroe, it will need a new motherboard. On the other hand, the Merom is pin compatible with the Yonah. Therefore, the cost estimation is not so obvious.
If the tested Conroe was in an enclosure as the iMac's, then OK. But it was not.
Good point. Still though, Apple would not be well suited to compete with the rest of the computer would without putting the Conroe in the iMac. Merom just doesn't make sense in the iMac as it's a moble chip. I know it draws less power and heat, but it doesn't make sense. The iMac would be less powerfull to comparable Dell, HP, etc desktops and then the question would become "why buy a iMac when you can get the same chip in a MacBook Pro?"
You seem to forget that if the iMac gets a Conroe, it will need a new motherboard. On the other hand, the Merom is pin compatible with the Yonah. Therefore, the cost estimation is not so obvious.
The pin compatibility is a good point, but that's only going to go so far because the socket will change for Merom early next year anyway.
Doesn't Apple sell something like half a million iMacs per quarter? I'm pretty sure that the cost of a new board design is a pittance compared to a $100/chip cost difference. Even if the cost difference was only $50/chip, I think the benefit of changing the board would still be huge.
I know we arent supposed to talk about stuff like this but you can not leave a post so blindly ignorant like this.
Im sorry but this post is ridiculos, you clearly do not know what is going on in the middle east. The american news loves to put the terrorist spin on everything to make your president justified for raging illegal wars.
The real terrorists out there is the Israli government. I would stop reading and believeing everything the american press has to say. Appleinsider excluded of course.
well, im not american and live in a country that loves to have 'american moments' along comedy hour, but if the post to which you reply is 'ridiculous' because that person 'do[es] not know what is going on in the middle east', you are just as blindly casting a blanket on him/her.
there have now been 3 boring and unrelated posts that i have read having to do with the war that is on between israel and lebannon. oh yes, and 'the real terrorists out there is the Israli government' is the hateboy/fanboy equivalent of AMD sucks because it is not in intel. great job at adding just that little bit of extra culture and education to this rumour site. go post it on a wall, full stop.
meanwhile, my money says wait till next year because there is no money for new mbp until long after leapard is due.
What happened to the distinction apple used to have between its pro line of laptops and the imac and consumer laptop (ibook)? As soon as Apple decided to put a G5 in the imac (a consumer computer) the whole product line seemed to get blurred and out of wack... I dont understand why Apple doesnt just use merom in the macbook pro and keep yonah in the macbook, put a DESKTOP processor of lesser power than conroe in the imac, and maybe use an even cheaper less power hungry processor in the mac mini.. Then there would be at lease some distinction between the product lines... It seems like Apple was just trigger happy when Yonah was released and decided to throw it in every one of their products...
Apple did used to have more distinction between it's computer lines, but much of that was done "artificially". With so few chips at high speeds available to Appl, the consumer stuff always got "shafted" a little by being behind while the pro stuff got whatever the latest and greatest was.
Theoretically, Apple could be using Intel chips that came out before Yonah like the P4, Pentium D, Pentium M, etc. However, Apple made a decision (and I believe it was the right one) that ANY chip prior to the "Core" family was outdated, obsolete, and didn't fit into their future-thinking philosophy.
Yonah, as you said, was all that was available that met Apple's desires, so they threw it into every Intel machine in order to move the Intel transition forward. Now that Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest are available, the choices are more plentiful and Apple can and will diversify. However, that doesn't mean that Apple should keep using Yonah just to make people buying Merom machines feel like they are getting something more powerful.
For exactly the same price they are paying today, Apple can upgrade the Mac mini to Dual 1.66 and Dual 1.8 Merom chips, giving them not only more MHz but 20% more processing power PER CYCLE, plus 64-bit capability and enhanced SSE media instructions. Some would say that is "not necessary" for a machine like the Mac mini. Others would say that sticks a fork in the eye of Dell and HP and other PC manufacturers and says "suck that!"
If that is what the bottom of Apple's lineup looks like, how is that NOT good for Apple? If they want to increase market share, they need to be aggressive like that and give possible-PC converts more reasons to find the Mac too appealing to ignore. A Mac mini with those "low-end" specs, with the MacBook and iMac with even higher specs puts a real shine on Apple.
You seem to forget that if the iMac gets a Conroe, it will need a new motherboard. On the other hand, the Merom is pin compatible with the Yonah. Therefore, the cost estimation is not so obvious.
But then again Apple isn't doing as much of the Mother Board design that they used to do when they had PowerPC chips in them, a lot of that is now done by Intel, so their R&D consts are less than they were before. It's a toss up, and we won't know untill Apple releases it. They could just update to a higher speed Yonah and reduce the cost, they could put in a Morem on the same Mother Board, a combination of the two or switch to Conroe. A lot depends on Apple's goals for the computer and how competative they want to be on price and performance with the rest of the industry. What we do know is that Apple likes small quiet computers as a rule, and that would logically point to Yonah or Morem. Then again new enclosures that reflect the new archetecture is in order as well, it's going to come sometime and the iMac is as good a model to point the direction with as any of their other computers, possibly more so since it is one of their most recognizable products and most established names on the market today.
They could just update to a higher speed Yonah and reduce the cost, they could put in a Morem on the same Mother Board, a combination of the two or switch to Conroe. A lot depends on Apple's goals for the computer and how competative they want to be on price and performance with the rest of the industry.
As someone mentioned above, the added cost for new Conroe-friendly boards is small when compaired to the sales the machine will generate. The iMac is Apple's flagship computer and unless they have some sort of plan to endorse a new flagship, it wouldn't make sense to give thier main computer the latest and greatest stuff in the consumer market when the other big manufacturers will be doing the same thing.
IMHO, Conroe WILL NOT go into the iMac this year. Apple has done their R&D on internal design and heat management for the iMac.
Meroms will go into the iMac and MacBookPro for the updates sometime later this year. 35W TDP of Merom compared to 65W TDP of Conroe and Merom being pin-compatible. The answer is simple for Apple accountants, Steve Jobs and managers.
I think a lot of you are discounting the power of Merom in an iMac. The iMac is primarily a consumer computer. A lot of design houses started finding out how good the iMac G5 was that they started just using that for some work - 17" or 20" versions of the iMac G5.
That is on hold now for the proffessional usage of the iMac since print/ web design is running in Rosetta. However, with Merom and 1GB/ 2GB the iMac Merom later this year will become a viable option for pro use of the iMac with Rosetta. If these pro houses have budget/ need to upgrade and don't want to go with the Mac Pro/ PowermacG5 for the lower-level staff.
Conroe is very powerful, but Woodcrests are even better. There is no "shame" to not have Conroe in the Apple line up. Yonahs filling out the lower-end, and still being very usable (mostly dual-core, I mean, dual-core man..!). Merom shoring up the iMac and MacBookPro (a no brainer in terms of cost).
The Mac Pros then will have kick ass Woodcrests that will make Conroe look weak at the knees. So, maybe a Conroe on the lowest end Mac Pro. But in terms of internal R&D and heat management, my prediction is that the Mac Pro is *all* Woodcrest. Good - Woodcrest single (dualcore). Better - Woodcrest double (quadcore). Best - 3ghz or close to it Woodcrest double (quadcore).
By the end of the year, hopefully, MacBooks are likely to get the Yonahs or lower speed Meroms. MacMini will get Yonahs, move to all dual core.
Well, that's my view for updates/ chips going towards the end of the year. Remember, Apple may continue to use "older/ outdated (by enthusiast standards)" chips in the lower lines to keep profit margins ticking over. They only need to use the latest in updates to products or intros of new products.
Oh, I had a weird dream yesterday where the Steve Jobs WWDC keynote was some weird video/ powerpoint presentation running off a Win98 PC, with him not talking at all, and we were meant to "figure out" with that what it had to do with Leopard and Mac Pro and all that, and people were all confused and pissed off as hell. Maybe it was the weird chinese herbal tea my mum gave me to drink before I went to sleep. (You know in Asia, you can get all sorts of traditional chinese herbs that are good for you in different ways)
As someone mentioned above, the added cost for new Conroe-friendly boards is small when compaired to the sales the machine will generate. The iMac is Apple's flagship computer and unless they have some sort of plan to endorse a new flagship, it wouldn't make sense to give thier main computer the latest and greatest stuff in the consumer market when the other big manufacturers will be doing the same thing.
The Merom iMac can still be marketed as having Core 2 Duo. The primary target market of the iMac will look at it and say, cool, Core 2 Duo, compare the Dell and say, oh, Core 2 Duo. Okay, cool, they're the same. Not that many people will delve into Merom vs Conroe because marketing wise they are both Core 2 Duo.
The iMac as a flagship is a flagship *consumer desktop* for Apple. It's main goals are to have a nice, bright, wide screen, a slim, attractive design, and run Mac OS X smoothly and enable iLife'06 at enjoyable speeds, along with MS Office for Mac and some other stuff.
I don't think it is always about the latest and greatest. Yes, the iMac Core Duo was "Intel Core Duo" as the main marketing objective because of the Intel switch.
Going back to the G5 though, that was a bit of an anomaly because they had to deliver something next-generation compared to the sunflower G4 iMac. The anomaly was that a PowerPC G5 is a very powerful chip compared to even dual-G4s. Hence our current view/ association as the iMac having to be really fast. But not necessarily. The iMac in lockstep with the MacBookPro is enough. Again, Conroe in iMac, IMHO, overkill and not worth the expense.
In fact, once they refine the MacBookPro internal design and heat issues, they could look at the iMac and make it even slimmer/ sexier too. A slim and sexy, visually striking iMac Merom is to me, having more marketing value then a current-sized noisier/ hotter iMac Conroe.
IMHO, Conroe WILL NOT go into the iMac this year. Apple has done their R&D on internal design and heat management for the iMac.
Meroms will go into the iMac and MacBookPro for the updates sometime later this year. 35W TDP of Merom compared to 65W TDP of Conroe and Merom being pin-compatible. The answer is simple for Apple accountants, Steve Jobs and managers.
I don't think you understand the costs. Let's assume that in six month's worth of production is 500,000 iMacs before they would have to change the boards anyway because the sockets change anyway. That could be US$50M difference in costs in chips. If it costs US$1M to develop a new circuit board, then that's potentially US$49M in savings.
I don't think you understand the costs. Let's assume that in six month's worth of production is 500,000 iMacs before they would have to change the boards anyway because the sockets change anyway. That could be US$50M difference in costs in chips. If it costs US$1M to develop a new circuit board, then that's potentially US$49M in savings.
Boy, my posts really get scrutinised by you I must admit, what you mentioned has gone over my head a little.
In the next six months, okay, let's assume Apple sells 500,000 iMacs. After 300,000 iMacs, they switch to Merom. Which is a drop-in. They might not even have to change any thermal management internals, or maybe just small tweaks. So you're looking at 500,000 iMacs sold in the next 6 months with minor cost impact.
I guess what I didn't figure out in the cost difference between Merom and Conroe. Could you show more working on how difference in chip prices offsets the R&D costs of a new board and redesigned thermal management for 65W TDP?
Meroms will go into the iMac and MacBookPro for the updates sometime later this year. 35W TDP of Merom compared to 65W TDP of Conroe and Merom being pin-compatible. (quadcore). Best - 3ghz or close to it Woodcrest double (quadcore).
A fine example of form limiting function. Isn't form supposed to follow function in good design? I will be very disappointed if you're right.
Originally posted by sunilraman Could you show more working on how difference in chip prices offsets the R&D costs of a new board and redesigned thermal management for 65W TDP? [/B]
I thought the current thermal system is the same as the iSight G5, at least it looked that way from the tear-down images. If that model can take the heat of a standard G5 without the complaints of noise like the previous models, I'd think that the same cooling system can handle the Conroe.
Wait. I think I got it - you're assuming a Merom being $100 more expensive than Conroe.
Then the next question would be thermal management and acoustics that are attractive to Apple. Unless they want to make the iMac even slimmer and sexier and thus stick to Merom.
Boy, I wonder how these companies make all these decisions at various levels of management....
Quick and dirty survey of news on pricing. Feel free to suggest refinements to this price table.
Merom
T7600, 2.33GHz, US$637
T7400, 2.16GHz, US$423
T7200, 2.0GHz, US$294
Conroe
E6700, 2.67GHz / 1066MHz, $530
E6600, 2.40GHz / 1066MHz, $316
E6400, 2.13GHz / 1066MHz, $224
E6300, 1.86GHz / 1066MHz, $183
Okay cool. It looks like you can get Conroes at $224 for 2.13ghz and $316 for 2.40ghz. Both already cheaper than Merom 2.16ghz at $423.
For 100,000 units at this pricing a Conroe 2.13ghz is $19,900,000 cheaper than a Merom 2.16ghz
For 100,000 units at this pricing a Conroe 2.40ghz is $32,100,000 cheaper than a Merom 2.33ghz
Boy, I'm coming around on this then, given the iMac g5 handled massive heat output and hence Apple's experience with that, and the cost savings of going to Conroe, it seems more likely to me now that the next iMac is going to be a Conroe, simply by nature of desktop Core 2s being cheaper than laptop Core 2s.
A fine example of form limiting function. Isn't form supposed to follow function in good design? I will be very disappointed if you're right.
Heh. Look at the calculations above. If Apple is gonna make a sexier, slimmer iMac and then being "forced" to use Merom then form is placed well above function and they "sacrifice" the cost savings of Conroe.
If Apple is sensible(?) they can go Conroe, realise the savings in CPU costs, and keep the current iMac form factor (given it's experience with handling G5 chip heat).
But Apple would not be Apple without distinct-looking hardware, for the sake of form over function... Though you could argue that in some cases they got it right where form and function are in harmony. Boy, whole 'nother industrial design question you've raised there...
Comments
Originally posted by TenoBell
Merom and Conroe are both Core 2.
Yes, but are not Merom chips designated Core 2 Mobile or Core 2 Duo Mobile? Can't quite remember.
The article I mentioned above is right here: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...e/promacs.ars.
Originally posted by Ensoniq
In fact, the switch from Yonah to Conroe in the iMac costs Apple about $20 less on the 17" and $20 more on the 20", but with significantly higher performance. Apple could go with 1.86/2.13 for the iMac instead of 2.13/2.4 if they wanted to lower the iMac costs. But at the same price, the faster chips make more sense.
You seem to forget that if the iMac gets a Conroe, it will need a new motherboard. On the other hand, the Merom is pin compatible with the Yonah. Therefore, the cost estimation is not so obvious.
Originally posted by jdcfsu
I saw a benchmark test that said the Conroe using SpeedStep only goes between 35C and 45C from idle to load -- like I said, it's possible in an iMac.
If the tested Conroe was in an enclosure as the iMac's, then OK. But it was not.
Originally posted by PB
If the tested Conroe was in an enclosure as the iMac's, then OK. But it was not.
Good point. Still though, Apple would not be well suited to compete with the rest of the computer would without putting the Conroe in the iMac. Merom just doesn't make sense in the iMac as it's a moble chip. I know it draws less power and heat, but it doesn't make sense. The iMac would be less powerfull to comparable Dell, HP, etc desktops and then the question would become "why buy a iMac when you can get the same chip in a MacBook Pro?"
Originally posted by PB
You seem to forget that if the iMac gets a Conroe, it will need a new motherboard. On the other hand, the Merom is pin compatible with the Yonah. Therefore, the cost estimation is not so obvious.
The pin compatibility is a good point, but that's only going to go so far because the socket will change for Merom early next year anyway.
Doesn't Apple sell something like half a million iMacs per quarter? I'm pretty sure that the cost of a new board design is a pittance compared to a $100/chip cost difference. Even if the cost difference was only $50/chip, I think the benefit of changing the board would still be huge.
Originally posted by xUKHCx
I know we arent supposed to talk about stuff like this but you can not leave a post so blindly ignorant like this.
Im sorry but this post is ridiculos, you clearly do not know what is going on in the middle east. The american news loves to put the terrorist spin on everything to make your president justified for raging illegal wars.
The real terrorists out there is the Israli government. I would stop reading and believeing everything the american press has to say. Appleinsider excluded of course.
well, im not american and live in a country that loves to have 'american moments' along comedy hour, but if the post to which you reply is 'ridiculous' because that person 'do[es] not know what is going on in the middle east', you are just as blindly casting a blanket on him/her.
there have now been 3 boring
meanwhile, my money says wait till next year because there is no money for new mbp until long after leapard is due.
Can someone shed some light on this?
Apple did used to have more distinction between it's computer lines, but much of that was done "artificially". With so few chips at high speeds available to Appl, the consumer stuff always got "shafted" a little by being behind while the pro stuff got whatever the latest and greatest was.
Theoretically, Apple could be using Intel chips that came out before Yonah like the P4, Pentium D, Pentium M, etc. However, Apple made a decision (and I believe it was the right one) that ANY chip prior to the "Core" family was outdated, obsolete, and didn't fit into their future-thinking philosophy.
Yonah, as you said, was all that was available that met Apple's desires, so they threw it into every Intel machine in order to move the Intel transition forward. Now that Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest are available, the choices are more plentiful and Apple can and will diversify. However, that doesn't mean that Apple should keep using Yonah just to make people buying Merom machines feel like they are getting something more powerful.
For exactly the same price they are paying today, Apple can upgrade the Mac mini to Dual 1.66 and Dual 1.8 Merom chips, giving them not only more MHz but 20% more processing power PER CYCLE, plus 64-bit capability and enhanced SSE media instructions. Some would say that is "not necessary" for a machine like the Mac mini. Others would say that sticks a fork in the eye of Dell and HP and other PC manufacturers and says "suck that!"
If that is what the bottom of Apple's lineup looks like, how is that NOT good for Apple? If they want to increase market share, they need to be aggressive like that and give possible-PC converts more reasons to find the Mac too appealing to ignore. A Mac mini with those "low-end" specs, with the MacBook and iMac with even higher specs puts a real shine on Apple.
Originally posted by PB
You seem to forget that if the iMac gets a Conroe, it will need a new motherboard. On the other hand, the Merom is pin compatible with the Yonah. Therefore, the cost estimation is not so obvious.
But then again Apple isn't doing as much of the Mother Board design that they used to do when they had PowerPC chips in them, a lot of that is now done by Intel, so their R&D consts are less than they were before. It's a toss up, and we won't know untill Apple releases it. They could just update to a higher speed Yonah and reduce the cost, they could put in a Morem on the same Mother Board, a combination of the two or switch to Conroe. A lot depends on Apple's goals for the computer and how competative they want to be on price and performance with the rest of the industry. What we do know is that Apple likes small quiet computers as a rule, and that would logically point to Yonah or Morem. Then again new enclosures that reflect the new archetecture is in order as well, it's going to come sometime and the iMac is as good a model to point the direction with as any of their other computers, possibly more so since it is one of their most recognizable products and most established names on the market today.
Originally posted by @homenow
They could just update to a higher speed Yonah and reduce the cost, they could put in a Morem on the same Mother Board, a combination of the two or switch to Conroe. A lot depends on Apple's goals for the computer and how competative they want to be on price and performance with the rest of the industry.
As someone mentioned above, the added cost for new Conroe-friendly boards is small when compaired to the sales the machine will generate. The iMac is Apple's flagship computer and unless they have some sort of plan to endorse a new flagship, it wouldn't make sense to give thier main computer the latest and greatest stuff in the consumer market when the other big manufacturers will be doing the same thing.
Meroms will go into the iMac and MacBookPro for the updates sometime later this year. 35W TDP of Merom compared to 65W TDP of Conroe and Merom being pin-compatible. The answer is simple for Apple accountants, Steve Jobs and managers.
I think a lot of you are discounting the power of Merom in an iMac. The iMac is primarily a consumer computer. A lot of design houses started finding out how good the iMac G5 was that they started just using that for some work - 17" or 20" versions of the iMac G5.
That is on hold now for the proffessional usage of the iMac since print/ web design is running in Rosetta. However, with Merom and 1GB/ 2GB the iMac Merom later this year will become a viable option for pro use of the iMac with Rosetta. If these pro houses have budget/ need to upgrade and don't want to go with the Mac Pro/ PowermacG5 for the lower-level staff.
Conroe is very powerful, but Woodcrests are even better. There is no "shame" to not have Conroe in the Apple line up. Yonahs filling out the lower-end, and still being very usable (mostly dual-core, I mean, dual-core man..!). Merom shoring up the iMac and MacBookPro (a no brainer in terms of cost).
The Mac Pros then will have kick ass Woodcrests that will make Conroe look weak at the knees. So, maybe a Conroe on the lowest end Mac Pro. But in terms of internal R&D and heat management, my prediction is that the Mac Pro is *all* Woodcrest. Good - Woodcrest single (dualcore). Better - Woodcrest double (quadcore). Best - 3ghz or close to it Woodcrest double (quadcore).
By the end of the year, hopefully, MacBooks are likely to get the Yonahs or lower speed Meroms. MacMini will get Yonahs, move to all dual core.
Well, that's my view for updates/ chips going towards the end of the year. Remember, Apple may continue to use "older/ outdated (by enthusiast standards)" chips in the lower lines to keep profit margins ticking over. They only need to use the latest in updates to products or intros of new products.
.................................................. .......
Oh, I had a weird dream yesterday where the Steve Jobs WWDC keynote was some weird video/ powerpoint presentation running off a Win98 PC, with him not talking at all, and we were meant to "figure out" with that what it had to do with Leopard and Mac Pro and all that, and people were all confused and pissed off as hell.
As someone mentioned above, the added cost for new Conroe-friendly boards is small when compaired to the sales the machine will generate. The iMac is Apple's flagship computer and unless they have some sort of plan to endorse a new flagship, it wouldn't make sense to give thier main computer the latest and greatest stuff in the consumer market when the other big manufacturers will be doing the same thing.
The Merom iMac can still be marketed as having Core 2 Duo. The primary target market of the iMac will look at it and say, cool, Core 2 Duo, compare the Dell and say, oh, Core 2 Duo. Okay, cool, they're the same. Not that many people will delve into Merom vs Conroe because marketing wise they are both Core 2 Duo.
The iMac as a flagship is a flagship *consumer desktop* for Apple. It's main goals are to have a nice, bright, wide screen, a slim, attractive design, and run Mac OS X smoothly and enable iLife'06 at enjoyable speeds, along with MS Office for Mac and some other stuff.
I don't think it is always about the latest and greatest. Yes, the iMac Core Duo was "Intel Core Duo" as the main marketing objective because of the Intel switch.
Going back to the G5 though, that was a bit of an anomaly because they had to deliver something next-generation compared to the sunflower G4 iMac. The anomaly was that a PowerPC G5 is a very powerful chip compared to even dual-G4s. Hence our current view/ association as the iMac having to be really fast. But not necessarily. The iMac in lockstep with the MacBookPro is enough. Again, Conroe in iMac, IMHO, overkill and not worth the expense.
In fact, once they refine the MacBookPro internal design and heat issues, they could look at the iMac and make it even slimmer/ sexier too. A slim and sexy, visually striking iMac Merom is to me, having more marketing value then a current-sized noisier/ hotter iMac Conroe.
Originally posted by sunilraman
IMHO, Conroe WILL NOT go into the iMac this year. Apple has done their R&D on internal design and heat management for the iMac.
Meroms will go into the iMac and MacBookPro for the updates sometime later this year. 35W TDP of Merom compared to 65W TDP of Conroe and Merom being pin-compatible. The answer is simple for Apple accountants, Steve Jobs and managers.
I don't think you understand the costs. Let's assume that in six month's worth of production is 500,000 iMacs before they would have to change the boards anyway because the sockets change anyway. That could be US$50M difference in costs in chips. If it costs US$1M to develop a new circuit board, then that's potentially US$49M in savings.
I don't think you understand the costs. Let's assume that in six month's worth of production is 500,000 iMacs before they would have to change the boards anyway because the sockets change anyway. That could be US$50M difference in costs in chips. If it costs US$1M to develop a new circuit board, then that's potentially US$49M in savings.
Boy, my posts really get scrutinised by you
In the next six months, okay, let's assume Apple sells 500,000 iMacs. After 300,000 iMacs, they switch to Merom. Which is a drop-in. They might not even have to change any thermal management internals, or maybe just small tweaks. So you're looking at 500,000 iMacs sold in the next 6 months with minor cost impact.
I guess what I didn't figure out in the cost difference between Merom and Conroe. Could you show more working on how difference in chip prices offsets the R&D costs of a new board and redesigned thermal management for 65W TDP?
Originally posted by sunilraman
Meroms will go into the iMac and MacBookPro for the updates sometime later this year. 35W TDP of Merom compared to 65W TDP of Conroe and Merom being pin-compatible. (quadcore). Best - 3ghz or close to it Woodcrest double (quadcore).
A fine example of form limiting function. Isn't form supposed to follow function in good design? I will be very disappointed if you're right.
Originally posted by sunilraman Could you show more working on how difference in chip prices offsets the R&D costs of a new board and redesigned thermal management for 65W TDP? [/B]
I thought the current thermal system is the same as the iSight G5, at least it looked that way from the tear-down images. If that model can take the heat of a standard G5 without the complaints of noise like the previous models, I'd think that the same cooling system can handle the Conroe.
Then the next question would be thermal management and acoustics that are attractive to Apple. Unless they want to make the iMac even slimmer and sexier and thus stick to Merom.
Boy, I wonder how these companies make all these decisions at various levels of management....
Merom
T7600, 2.33GHz, US$637
T7400, 2.16GHz, US$423
T7200, 2.0GHz, US$294
Conroe
E6700, 2.67GHz / 1066MHz, $530
E6600, 2.40GHz / 1066MHz, $316
E6400, 2.13GHz / 1066MHz, $224
E6300, 1.86GHz / 1066MHz, $183
Okay cool. It looks like you can get Conroes at $224 for 2.13ghz and $316 for 2.40ghz. Both already cheaper than Merom 2.16ghz at $423.
For 100,000 units at this pricing a Conroe 2.13ghz is $19,900,000 cheaper than a Merom 2.16ghz
For 100,000 units at this pricing a Conroe 2.40ghz is $32,100,000 cheaper than a Merom 2.33ghz
Boy, I'm coming around on this then, given the iMac g5 handled massive heat output and hence Apple's experience with that, and the cost savings of going to Conroe, it seems more likely to me now that the next iMac is going to be a Conroe, simply by nature of desktop Core 2s being cheaper than laptop Core 2s.
A fine example of form limiting function. Isn't form supposed to follow function in good design? I will be very disappointed if you're right.
Heh. Look at the calculations above. If Apple is gonna make a sexier, slimmer iMac and then being "forced" to use Merom then form is placed well above function and they "sacrifice" the cost savings of Conroe.
If Apple is sensible(?) they can go Conroe, realise the savings in CPU costs, and keep the current iMac form factor (given it's experience with handling G5 chip heat).
But Apple would not be Apple without distinct-looking hardware, for the sake of form over function... Though you could argue that in some cases they got it right where form and function are in harmony. Boy, whole 'nother industrial design question you've raised there...