Intel Powermac? [Archive] - AppleNova Forums

ZachPruckowski

2006-02-19, 21:35

Based on the only two converts thus far, it'll keep its current price points. It may use Conroe:

2.66 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache $530
2.40 GHz / FSB 1066/ 4 MB shared L2 cache $316
2.13 GHz / FSB 1066/ 2 MB shared L2 cache $241
1.86 GHz / FSB 1066/ 2 MB shared L2 cache $209
1.60 GHz / FSB 800/ 2 MB shared L2 cache

Got that from here: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/11/intel_conroe_to_launch_in_q3/

Extreme editions will clock as high as 3.33GHz, with 1,333MHz FSB speeds, a 4 MB unified L2 cache, and 95 watts of power consumption, though providing significantly better performance, according to Geek.com

While Conroe is dual core, there is currently no plans for a Conroe chipset that'll allow for a dual-dual (like the PowerMac Quad) configuration. If I had to guess, I'd say a 2.13 GHz, a 2.6 GHz, and then Apple pulls a secret chipset out of nowhere that lets them get two 2.6 GHz conroes in the Quad.

Henriok

2006-02-20, 05:56

While Conroe is dual core, there is currently no plans for a Conroe chipset that'll allow for a dual-dual (like the PowerMac Quad) configuration.
That's where Woodcrest comes in. I havn't studied the difference between Conroe and Woodcrest but the major difference seems to be this issue.

ZachPruckowski

2006-02-20, 11:38

That's where Woodcrest comes in. I havn't studied the difference between Conroe and Woodcrest but the major difference seems to be this issue.

My thoughts precisely, except that it may be too far out for Apple's liking, which is why the first-gen Intel quads might have some sort of Apple-modified chipset. Then they'd be selling the only quads on the market.

mjteix

2006-02-20, 16:03

My thoughts precisely, except that it may be too far out for Apple's liking, which is why the first-gen Intel quads might have some sort of Apple-modified chipset. Then they'd be selling the only quads on the market.
Woodcrest is expected to be available in Q3, maybe just after Conroe (july). Woodcrest will be able to work in pairs providing quad core systems.
*the 5160 at 2.93GHz, the 5150 at 2.66GHz, the 5140 at 2.33GHz, the 5130 at 2GHz, the 5120 at 1.86GHz and the 5110 at 1.6GHz.
The price cashcade when you buy loads of these is $850, $700, $470, $330, $270 and $230.*
Apple may be using Conroe on the dual-core PowerMacs models but will use Woodcrest on the quad(s).
Apple may also use Woodcrest on all model to have only one motherboard architecture (1333MHz FSB)
So we could see:
$1999 Dual-core 2.33
$2499 Dual-core 2.93
$3299 Quad-core 2.93
I am the eternal optimist...

doublem9876

2006-02-20, 16:16

Do you know if these are supposed to be the same speeds available in Merom?

starcat102

2006-02-20, 16:32

Hmm... all this talk about woodcrest and conroe and waiting for quad x64 systems... Have you ever taken a look for instance at the Sun Ultra 40 at http://www.sun.com/desktop/workstation/ultra40/index.jsp This is basically a quad core AMD opteron chip design, two 16x PCI-express graphics slots (yeah, two Quadro cards), 4x hot-plug Serial-ATA drives and 16GB memory! So actually we already have the Intel-compatible and Quad-equivalent hardware and only need MacOS X to run on it! Any oppinions on that?

davidbaldwin

2006-02-20, 22:24

Apple will suprise everyone when they release the PowerMac with the:

AMD Athlon X2 Processor

Why?
Because, accourding to Cnet it has more power (POWERmac get it?)
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html

Look at the video editing page...
it may need to be updated, but when they update the X2 to include the 5000+ series, AMD wil once again whop intel in the performance sector...

Both AMD and intel are x86-64 so, programs coded for intel would automaticly work for the AMD line.

Watch for an update to Xcode where the word "intel" is replaced by x86.

-Baldwin

starcat102

2006-02-21, 02:35

Exactly this is my point - or *must* Apple use Woodcrest and Conroe when quad x64 hardware is ALREADY available??? I don't get the point with all the Woodcrest/Conroe discussions. Do Apple has some Intel-only agreement with someone on the x64 processor to be used? Remember that they may use anytime the Core Duo in the laptops and Opteron in the PowerMacs! Using Opteron they may even anounce an Octa PowerMac (quad dual-core opteron hardware is also already freely available). They may even strip down the power6 processor and use (as the new G6) in the PowerMacs and servers only and continue to build Universal Binary apps? Sun does it all the time. Yeah, I know the announcement Steve has made, but how often has he changed his mind?

starcat102

2006-02-21, 02:45

AMD Athlon X2 Processor
...
it may need to be updated, but when they update the X2 to include the 5000+ series, AMD wil once again whop intel in the performance sector...

I doubt they will use Athlon but maybe the Opteron. Remeber the Powermac has to be better than the iMac and it uses the same same CPUs as the server line. And it *has* to be 64bit. I don't think we will see a 32bit CPU based PowerMac.

If I were Jobs I would select the best from both worlds, opteron for the workstation and server line and Core Duo for the portables and home iMac's.

turbulentfurball

2006-02-21, 05:02

Why?
Because, accourding to Cnet it has more power (POWERmac get it?)

Why does that remind me of Tim 'The Toolman' Taylor? :lol:

Also, I'm prety sure that Apple are going to stay with Intel. Probably an agreement to stay exclusively with Intel.

starcat102

2006-02-21, 05:38

Also, I'm prety sure that Apple are going to stay with Intel. Probably an agreement to stay exclusively with Intel.

I wouldn't have done that especially bearing in mind that Intel is waaay behind AMD's x64 technology recovering from the dead IA64 architecture. However Intel is a huge company and may recover quicker than expected but they *are* behind in the x64 space. There are no Woodcrest systems around and Opteron have been selling for years. Why should Apple choose Intel for everything, practically degrading the current PowerMac? The new intel PowerMac *has* to be better, it has to became something like an Octo and we already have such Opteron systems. If Apple want to come out with x64-something better than the current Quad, it has to be an Opteron design, missing the train otherwise. Think about it, why as a customer should I choose to migrate to the new intel PowerMac and not stay with the current Quad if is not better? And making a better system than the Quad is not trivial!

Take a look at apple.com - this "Intel Core Duo" logo can anytime change to AMD Opteron on the PowerMac Page, anytime. There is nothing exclusively Intel. Or is IBM and all others exclusively Intel? They're not, so wouldn't be Apple (if they are wise).

By going Opteron, Apple will definitely get an eight-core Xserve (4 dual-core Opteron) system for all rendering intensive grid stuff. And they would be even price competetive! Waiting for Woodcrest I doubt they will even get a Quad PowerMac till end of this year, but we all agree, the new one *must* be better than the current model, don't we!?

mjteix

2006-02-21, 09:17

Do you know if these are supposed to be the same speeds available in Merom?
MEROM
- T5600 @ 1.83 GHz, FSB 667 MHz, 4 MB L2 (single-core)
- T7200 @ 2.00 GHz, FSB 667 MHz, 4 MB L2 (dual-core)
- T7400 @ 2.16 GHz, FSB 667 MHz, 4 MB L2 (dual-core)
- T7600 @ 2.33 GHz, FSB 667 MHz, 4 MB L2 (dual-core)

emagius

2006-02-21, 11:49

By going Opteron, Apple will definitely get an eight-core Xserve (4 dual-core Opteron) system for all rendering intensive grid stuff. And they would be even price competetive! Waiting for Woodcrest I doubt they will even get a Quad PowerMac till end of this year, but we all agree, the new one *must* be better than the current model, don't we!?

A) Apple can afford to wait until Q3.
B) The Quad-core Woodcrest machines will certainly not be inferior to the Quad G5s.

The last vestiges of AMD's "superiority" will come crashing down by the middle of next year at the latest; for most intents and purposes Intel's offering will surpass anything AMD has even planned by later this year. It would be foolish for Apple to make such a short-sighted and short-term decision as to switch temporarily to AMD processors.

shell

2006-02-21, 12:54

Considering that Intel is designing the new PowerMac motherboard, it's safe to say that it will not feature anything by AMD.
As far as Intel being inferior/superior we should probably wait for the benchmarks before saying anything too certainly. It would be best for consumers if the two companies remained competitive for many years to come; just think of the sorry state Intel would be in right now if they were the chip monopoly without any competition save from the upstart Via!

starcat102

2006-02-21, 12:58

B) The Quad-core Woodcrest machines will certainly not be inferior to the Quad G5s.

If it is not waaAYYYY better why should anyone change the quad to the Intel PowerMac? Just to wait for CS3 to come out or just to have the alpha version? This is a pro market machine.

The last vestiges of AMD's "superiority" will come crashing down by the middle of next year at the latest; for most intents and purposes Intel's offering will surpass anything AMD has even planned by later this year. It would be foolish for Apple to make such a short-sighted and short-term decision as to switch temporarily to AMD processors.

I see, yeah... You don' believe this, do you? AMD had *years* to work on the x64 architecture while Intel was wasting time with IA64.

starcat102

2006-02-21, 13:02

Considering that Intel is designing the new PowerMac motherboard, it's safe to say that it will not feature anything by AMD.

I bet that there are a couple of designs going on in parallel and only the best would turn into a product. It maybe Intel, however it is not 100% sure.

ZachPruckowski

2006-02-21, 13:54

Based on how close Apple and Intel seem to be, there must be some exclusivity clause, at least for the next year or two. And I've heard Conroe/Merom might be ready early Q3, like Julyish in limited quantities. Which means they could be announced in June and have a slow and staggered release through July/August (like the MBP now, announced early Jan, shipping Feb-Mar).

I see Apple making a custom chipset, or just not releasing the Quad until Nov.

davidbaldwin

2006-02-21, 15:19

I doubt they will use Athlon but maybe the Opteron. Remeber the Powermac has to be better than the iMac and it uses the same same CPUs as the server line. And it *has* to be 64bit. I don't think we will see a 32bit CPU based PowerMac.

If I were Jobs I would select the best from both worlds, opteron for the workstation and server line and Core Duo for the portables and home iMac's.

I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear, but the AMD Athlon 64 X2 is a 64bit processor..
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_13041,00.html

The way I see it,
Powermac: AMD Athlon 64 X2
Xserve: AMD Opteron 64

Oh, by the way, did you know that all the Special Effects in Star Wars Episode III were created using the AMD Athlon 64 X2 Processor?

It would be really interesting to see Video Encoding benchmarks for the two processors, because obviosly Apple would go with the higest in performence for video encoding because that is there largest makret for there professional products.

For all of you "intel is going to be better here soon..."...
AMD already has the leg up, you really don't think there not going to keep there advantage?
Have you even seen there roadmap?
nieter have I.

Now, I agree that intel was a wise choice for the small form-factor products (Macbook Pro, iBook, Mac Mini, and iMac), because of it's low power usage and low heat...

But, for a professional product like the Power Mac?
c'mon
Professionals dont give a damn what kind of heat it creates or how much power it uses, all they care about is having the most amount of power...

Oh, and if DELL dosn't have an exlusive deal with intel...why would Apple?
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/dell_says_no_intel_exclusive/

Jobs never said they were exlusive at WWDC and Apple would be foolish to close off there options so tightly..

-Baldwin

chucker

2006-02-21, 15:31

Oh, by the way, did you know that all the Special Effects in Star Wars Episode III were created using the AMD Athlon 64 X2 Processor?

Really.

So what you're saying is: the special effects of a movie that was released May 19, 2005 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) were done on a CPU whose first revision came out April 21, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2).

That's one hell of a job, doing all those effects in less than a month.

davidbaldwin

2006-02-21, 15:41

Really.

So what you're saying is: the special effects of a movie that was released May 19, 2005 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3.htm) were done on a CPU whose first revision came out April 21, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2).

That's one hell of a job, doing all those effects in less than a month.

Who's to say they didn't get them before hand?
Intel would do nothing of the sort, but AMD?

I found this out because I work for Circuit City and we have/had these mouse pads from AMD that said all the special effects were created using the AMD Athlon 64 X2 processor..

I have one aroudn the house...
somwhere....

-Baldwin

davidbaldwin

2006-02-21, 15:43

I'm assuing that AMD wanted the PR by releasing them early to Lucas.

then they can say:
"All of the special effects in Episode III were created using this processor!"
"YAY"

-Baldwin

DeathChill

2006-02-22, 21:55

Well, we already know the Powermac's will be Intel, and will probably be called Pro Mac's or Mac Pro's or whatever Apple recently trademarked.

Apple has made it QUITE a huge deal that they are using Intel. They don't refer to an x86 binary as an x86 binary, they call them an Intel binary. You don't build x86 binaries, you build Intel binaries. Don't think that they'll backtrack on that one.

If anyone thinks that all the sudden Apple will be using AMD, which is only faster at the moment and is quickly falling behind because they are only extending and ramping u their current chips, rather then going for a whole new design. Holy run on sentence, Batman. :)

EDIT: Also, I doubt that AMD gave LucasFilm a CPU they were still working on at the time. I haven't seen any PR about it besides by fanboys saying it without any links or evidence.

Partial

2006-02-22, 22:03

CineAlta

2006-02-22, 23:49

That's where Woodcrest comes in.

You sure Apple won't go with Intel Clovertown (quad-core) in Jan '07?

stits

2006-02-23, 00:26

I was under the impression that by the time (3rd qtr 06) that the powermac came out the dual core 64bit chips would be out in force.

davidbaldwin

2006-02-23, 23:55

dude Core Duo keeps up with a 4400 X2. I believe that Conroe will be very competitive with whatever AMD has out at the time, and if it renders Quake 9 one frame per second slower than oh well so be it. Intel will take back the lead over the next 20 years because it costs a great deal of money to downsize and AMD doesn't have the kind of cash that Intel does.

Ahh, well too bad intel dual cores are not true dual cores like AMDs are..
it's like having two pumps, and insted of having two pipes, intel decided to go with a valve so there would only have to be one pipe...
so, in reality there's only one data stream at a time.

Also, Intel processors have been, and it looks like they will always be bottlenecked due to the memory controller not being integrated into the processor like good 'ole AMD.

And then there's the "Core Duos ARE 64bit" "Core Does ARE NOT 64bit" shit that keeps getting turned back and forth...
well, at least we KNOW the Athlon is 64bit and AMD flaunts it.

AMDs architechture (Direct Connect) is MUCH MUCH better than intels. and to say that "AMD is only ahead at the moment" is a stupid argument with no thought or foresight...

-Baldwin
PS Waiting for the Dual Core Turions too be realesed and kick that sorry little Core Duos ass.

chucker

2006-02-23, 23:59

Ahh, well too bad intel dual cores are not true dual cores like AMDs are..

It's two cores. Ergo, dual-core. What's your problem?

it's like having two pumps, and insted of having two pipes, intel decided to go with a valve so there would only have to be one pipe...
so, in reality there's only one data stream at a time.

The analogy is flawed. Both cores do work at the same time.

Also, Intel processors have been, and it looks like they will always be bottlenecked due to the memory controller not being integrated into the processor like good 'ole AMD.

The benefits of that are vastly overstated.

And then there's the "Core Duos ARE 64bit" "Core Does ARE NOT 64bit" shit that keeps getting turned back and forth...
well, at least we KNOW the Athlon is 64bit and AMD flaunts it.

Intel and AMD use the very same 64-bit extensions.

PS Waiting for the Dual Core Turions too be realesed and kick that sorry little Core Duos ass.

Then what, precisely, are you doing here?

davidbaldwin

2006-02-24, 00:05

Yes, both cores do run at the same damn time, but they only have one "pipe" back to the motherboard.
I call it a pipe, because I'm not sure what the technical term is..

Uhh, huh, well, at least you can admit that it's a "benefit".
It's just like me saying "Intel's powermanagment features are VASTLY overstated."
Well, I like to know that the one WITH the integrated memory controll out performs the one without.

Intel reverse enganeered AMDs 64bit technology

-Baldwin
I'm here because I love Apple, but I think they are not makine the best choice for us and what we want, but is making the "safest" choice, because intel can produce more chips than anyone. All I'm saying is that AMD has a better chip and will have better ones in the future. Just because everyone knows all the God Damn code names for all the new intel processers dosn't mean that AMD is going to stick in the sand with what they have...

davidbaldwin

2006-02-24, 00:08

AMD = 2 cores, 2 datastreams
Intel = 2 cores, 1 datastream

-Baldwin

Frank777

2006-02-24, 01:04

Macworld Editor Jason Snell says that anyone replacing Macs up to 1.1 ghz or lower will see an improvement with the new Intel MacBook Pro, even when using Rosetta.

The MacTower Pro (or Intel PowerMac as this thread calls it) will be faster than the MacBook Pro.

Since I'm moving from a 400mhz Sawtooth that's been upgraded with a 1 ghz upgrade card, I can actually move to Intel with the first revision and not miss a beat.

I suspect many of us who bought Sawtooth G4s will move early. And yes, many of these machines are being used in graphic environments, though not by the Photoshop gurus.

If Adobe thinks everyone will be waiting for CS3 in early 2007, they may get a nasty surprise.
Quark will be universal early and Softpress' Freeway is already. I may buy both if really competitive upgrades are offered.

If anyone ever wanted to take on Illustrator, this would be their only chance. :D

chucker

2006-02-24, 01:07

I'm glad you're satisfied with your AMD products. I still don't understand what your anti-Intel rants have to do in a PowerMac successor thread. Apple is not going to use AMD for some time to come, if ever. Period. They have no reason to either. Intel's upcoming CPUs will be good performers, and whether AMD's will be as well has no bearing whatsoever.

CineAlta

2006-02-24, 01:44

I predict we'll see our first Mactel desktops in June/July, and some really heavy-hitters will roll out in Oct/Nov.

Shadow Slayer 26

2006-02-26, 17:07

i doubt they would use the AMD X2...they would use the AMD FX-60 chip...duel core, and amazing at the same time...the AMD FX-57 was better than nething intel could come up with, and they pretty much just doubled it with FX-60

BJNY

2006-03-01, 17:40

I posted this at AI as well.

What's the likelihood Apple will rev the Power Mac G5's at NAB in April?
I wouldn't mind having a Quad 2.0 as a configuration, Airport/Bluetooth becoming standard,
and the 30" ACD updated with the second generation panel from the manufacturer.
What are the chances?

Also, according to Hardmac, Samsung will have a Blu-Ray drive available in April, too.
Wouldn't that appeal to video pros at NAB?

ZachPruckowski

2006-03-01, 18:35

No more PPC bumps. Once the Intel starts, Apple won't stop it.

Blu-Ray isn't backwards compatible to CD, is it? I mean, apparently some models will be DVD-compatible (according to wikipedia), but does that mean CDs too? Because you almost have to have a CD player still. It's not gone the way of the floppy yet, because products like music and smaller games ship on CDs.

Rolo

2006-03-01, 18:48

Conroe could debut in September with dual cores and possibly quad cores.

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/intel_to_implement_israli_designed_micro_architect ure_later_this_year/

Will there be an interim PPC PM update? It's certainly possible. If there will be one, it'd be within the next 5 weeks and the timing would be right for adding a Blu-Ray drive.

OTOH, it's hard to imagine Apple would have a UB version of the Final Cut Studio at about the same time as an updated PM G5. I'd tend to think that at NAB, Apple will show off a pre-release version of the Mac Pro (whatever it's called) running some early Conroe iron. If you want to show off Apple's latest native pro software, might as well use some uber-gnarly hardware, no?

chucker

2006-03-01, 18:49

Blu-Ray isn't backwards compatible to CD, is it? I mean, apparently some models will be DVD-compatible (according to wikipedia), but does that mean CDs too? Because you almost have to have a CD player still. It's not gone the way of the floppy yet, because products like music and smaller games ship on CDs.

As the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-Ray) states:
Optical heads allowing the reading of CD/DVD/Blu-ray discs have already been developed and are expected to be included after first release of DVD/Blu-ray only drives. [17] (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200405/04-026E/)
The Panasonic Blu-ray SW-5582 is the first drive to support all 3 formats [referring to CD, DVD and BD]. [18] (http://www.slidirect.com/web/do/pub/sku/view?categoryId=43&id=105)

Therefore, it does appear possible to have a drive that supports all of them, and in the long run, that's probably what's going to spread.

lectro

2006-03-01, 19:12

Anyone who thinks Apple would use chips from AMD is missing the point entirely. Apple's biggest problem with PPC chips was that IBM couldn't make enough of them to meet the demand. This is about production, not performance. Sure, AMD has chips that are a smidgen faster than similar chips from Intel, but they have far less production capability.

Now, getting back to what this thread is all about - I think that the new PowerMac (whatever it ends up being called) will not need nearly as much in the coolant department, so a complete redesign of the case is possible. Unlike the iMac and PowerBook, the PowerMac G5 has two massive processors to keep cool. Intel's chips seem to run much cooler, so the giant armoured case will no longer be necessary.

Also, I predict that the new case will be shiny.

tourette

2006-03-02, 04:17

Anyone think there is any chance Intel might design the new boards to have one PCI-X slot (please please)?

chucker

2006-03-02, 07:04

Why would Apple get rid of PCI-X, then add it back? PCI-X is dead.

tourette

2006-03-02, 14:33

Aye and a lot of people will still be using PCI and PCI-X products for a long time. PCs still kept 1 ISA slot for years after ISA died for that reason.

Dug-OH

2006-03-07, 00:16

I hope they change the Powermac case. It's not ugly, but Apple could crank up the cool factor by a long shot. Given the looks of the iPods, iMacs, laptops...the Powermac case seems a little lame...

shell

2006-03-07, 01:21

If anyone ever wanted to take on Illustrator, this would be their only chance. :D

Only too true. One of the primary reason InDesign is where it is today is due the fact that Quark was almost the last holdout on OS X. I see that they wised up this time around and released their universal binary on day one. It seems now Adobe wants to learn things the hard way. ;)

edit: I meant InDesign, I just mistakenly typed illustrator because it was written right above me, who has never done that before? My point was that Quark was burned during the OS X swithover by dragging their feet and Adobe appears to be dragging their feet this time around.

admactanium

2006-03-07, 02:35

Only too true. One of the primary reason Illustrator is where it is today is due the fact that Quark was almost the last holdout on OS X. I see that they wised up this time around and released their universal binary on day one. It seems now Adobe wants to learn things the hard way. ;)
what exactly are you talking about? who cross-shops illustrator and quark? they're not even used for the same tasks. adobe isn't going to learn anything the hard way. barring an act of god, pro's will not switch away from photoshop. illustrator has a very strong hold on its market and indesign is probably the weakest of them all compared to its competition (but gaining ground every day).

i don't think the slow change to ub is going to be much of a problem for adobe honestly. the people who buy and use their software aren't going to switch to intel chips until they're getting a speed boost. as much of an apple fan as i am, i still need to look at their computers objectively because i use them to make money. i won't buy a new computer just because it's new and shiny. it needs to offer me a benefit to my work. people will wait for cs3 to buy intel macs rather than buying intel macs and waiting or switching away from cs3.

Kraetos

2006-03-07, 21:47

dude Core Duo keeps up with a 4400 X2. I believe that Conroe will be very competitive with whatever AMD has out at the time, and if it renders Quake 9 one frame per second slower than oh well so be it. Intel will take back the lead over the next 20 years because it costs a great deal of money to downsize and AMD doesn't have the kind of cash that Intel does.

I have a 4400 X2 and a 1.83 GHz iMac Core Duo and I can tell you that the 4400 X2 feels a LOT faster than the Core Duo. A lot. My Alienware can run F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200 with no frame rate drop. Even basic OS tasks feel faster on the X2. I ripped "A Rush of Blood to the Head" today to the Alienware in about a minute. Doubt the iMac could do that. Of course, the Alienware DOES have twice the RAM.

The Core line isn't going to catch up with AMD's powerhouses until we see Conroe. Yonah isn't built for speed, it's built for efficiency. I remember reading an article about how the Core Duo 2.0 GHz was a huge breakthrough in performance-per-watt, but its just not a powerhouse. If you're looking for the fastest CPU on the market, its currently the AMD FX-60. By a pretty wide measure, I believe.

I'll find some benchmarks for you if you don't believe me, but my 4400 X2 is absolutely SCREAMING fast. I still am blown away by its speed and I've had it for almost 3 months. Too bad its hampered by Windows :no:

Schnauzer

2006-03-07, 22:08

All i say is i cant wait to see what apple comes out with!

man the new powermac should rock! :)

CoreMac

2006-03-08, 00:04

Here are some benchmarks for Conroe. http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1

DeathChill

2006-03-08, 08:20

I have a 4400 X2 and a 1.83 GHz iMac Core Duo and I can tell you that the 4400 X2 feels a LOT faster than the Core Duo. A lot. My Alienware can run F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200 with no frame rate drop. Even basic OS tasks feel faster on the X2. I ripped "A Rush of Blood to the Head" today to the Alienware in about a minute. Doubt the iMac could do that. Of course, the Alienware DOES have twice the RAM.

The Core line isn't going to catch up with AMD's powerhouses until we see Conroe. Yonah isn't built for speed, it's built for efficiency. I remember reading an article about how the Core Duo 2.0 GHz was a huge breakthrough in performance-per-watt, but its just not a powerhouse. If you're looking for the fastest CPU on the market, its currently the AMD FX-60. By a pretty wide measure, I believe.

I'll find some benchmarks for you if you don't believe me, but my 4400 X2 is absolutely SCREAMING fast. I still am blown away by its speed and I've had it for almost 3 months. Too bad its hampered by Windows :no:
This would be because the Core Duo is a laptop chip which is not meant to be compared against a desktop CPU. However, Conroe, which is based off the same microarchitecture, blows the competition away according to the benchmarks.

some ninja master

2006-03-08, 08:42

When did this thread become the intel vs. amd forum.

shell

2006-03-08, 11:58

This would be because the Core Duo is a laptop chip which is not meant to be compared against a desktop CPU.

In fact the Core Duo pretty much puts (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=4) the Pentium D to shame.

Kraetos

2006-03-12, 21:57

This would be because the Core Duo is a laptop chip which is not meant to be compared against a desktop CPU. However, Conroe, which is based off the same microarchitecture, blows the competition away according to the benchmarks.

I know. Someone in this thread said the Core Duo was meant to keep up with the X2, and I was just pointing out that it isn't.

I am interested to see Conroe once its fully implemented and on sale. Still, I doubt it will be faster than whatever AMD releases to compete with it, or even the current AMD flagship (FX-60). AMD chips are just faster, which is odd because Intel theoretically has a lot more money to spend or R&D. It's probably because Intel is still recovering from the blunder that was the P4. Anyways, Conroe represents the lessons learned by Intel from their mistakes, and I am looking forward to its release.

DeathChill

2006-03-12, 23:56

I know. Someone in this thread said the Core Duo was meant to keep up with the X2, and I was just pointing out that it isn't.

I am interested to see Conroe once its fully implemented and on sale. Still, I doubt it will be faster than whatever AMD releases to compete with it, or even the current AMD flagship (FX-60). AMD chips are just faster, which is odd because Intel theoretically has a lot more money to spend or R&D. It's probably because Intel is still recovering from the blunder that was the P4. Anyways, Conroe represents the lessons learned by Intel from their mistakes, and I am looking forward to its release.
Uh, the FX-60 (overclocked to 2.8 GHz) was smashed by the Conroe, which was only at 2.67 GHz:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1

As well, the next AMD release is only for adding support for DDR2, so speed increases aren't going to be much as every reviewer who has gotten one has said that they perform the same, if not worse, then the current Socket 939 chips.

AMD chips WERE faster, not anymore though.

BenRoethig

2006-03-13, 08:50

Robo

2006-03-13, 11:12

ZachPruckowski

2006-03-13, 12:06

I wouldn't be suprised to see Conroe in the lower 2 PowerMacs, and then Woodcrest unleashed in the top PM

Robo

2006-03-13, 12:46

I wouldn't be suprised to see Conroe in the lower 2 PowerMacs, and then Woodcrest unleashed in the top PM

That's possible, as well.

BenRoethig

2006-03-13, 12:58

Apple doesn't play to Conroe's market? You do realize that Conroe is Intel's future desktop chip? Woodcrest is designed for servers, and high-end workstations too, I suppose.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Conroe in the iMac and in any mid-range desktop Apple makes.

And Apple doesn't have a mid range conventional desktop. Due to their form factors, both the iMac and Mini need lower power chips. The PowerMac is workstation class and I don't see that changing for its replacement. The portables, Mini, and iMac will use merom and its variants, the PowerMac will use woodcrest. I don't see any place in Apple's lineup for Conroe.

chucker

2006-03-13, 13:10

There is no reason the iMac can't use Conroe when it previously used a G5.

Robo

2006-03-13, 13:22

There is no reason the iMac can't use Conroe when it previously used a G5.

Chucker took the words right out of my mouth. I think the iMac will get Conroe.

BenRoethig

2006-03-13, 16:52

There is no reason the iMac can't use Conroe when it previously used a G5.

The Front row iMacs were thinner than previous iMacs and used the new low-power variant of the 970FX.

Kraetos

2006-03-13, 21:14

Uh, the FX-60 (overclocked to 2.8 GHz) was smashed by the Conroe, which was only at 2.67 GHz:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843&page=1

As well, the next AMD release is only for adding support for DDR2, so speed increases aren't going to be much as every reviewer who has gotten one has said that they perform the same, if not worse, then the current Socket 939 chips.

AMD chips WERE faster, not anymore though.

Cool! If thats accurate (call me crazy for taking a review of a product that is still 4 months out with a grain of salt, if you must) then you're absolutley right. It probably just comes down to the fact that Intel has that much more money to spend - and when they spend it right, it shows.

I think the whole Core rebranding is a great way for Intel to go. They really frakked up with the Pentium 4. NetBurst architecture always has been terribly inefficient, mostly because it sacrifices pipeline length for clock speed. 3.8 GHz sounds cool, right up until it is trounced by its competitor running at 2.2 GHz because the design is that much better.

The Core line isn't even NetBurst architecture, Intel is dropping it completley, and I don't blame them. Core is actually an evolution is Pentium M, which in itself is an evolution of the Pentium III. Weird, right?

chucker

2006-03-14, 02:29

The Front row iMacs were thinner than previous iMacs and used the new low-power variant of the 970FX.

They were thinner, yes, but as for low-power? News to me. I don't think the 970 (or any of its relatives) ever got released in a low-power variant.

They were thinner primarily because
1) the new backlight was more efficient and required less space
2) the components had previously been organized nicely and user-friendly; this was now given up on.

BenRoethig

2006-03-14, 07:45

The Low power variant was released with the dual core 970MP

chucker

2006-03-14, 07:56

Even if the Rev C iMac G5 did use a low-power variant, that's not proof enough that it used significantly less power than a Conroe-based setup would.

Robo

2006-03-14, 22:02

Exactly. Conroe is based on the Pentium M. I wouldn't be surprised if it gave off comparable heat to the low-power G5.

JK47

2006-03-14, 23:36

It's definitely physically possible for the iMac to use Conroe, but it all depends on what the Intel Powermacs get; if they get Conroe, the iMac will move to Memron, if the Powermacs get Woodcrest the iMac will move to Conroe.

MacRonin

2006-03-15, 00:55

Maybe Apple will decide to go all Woodcrest on the MacPro & MacServe units, hopefully getting a better deal from Intel...

Conroe for the iMacs, & Merom for everything else...

copland

2006-03-15, 09:57

Woodcrests are more than $ 1000 a piece (if I remember correctly) - if bought in quantities of thousand.
So if you are considering a dual dual Woodcrest PM you are talking ~ $ 2000 just for the procs. The Quad G5 PM is now on sale for $ 3299.
I don't think you can get close with woodcrest. That's why I think there will be Conroe PM and some more expensive Woodcrest PMs.
copland

mjteix

2006-03-15, 16:11

Woodcrests are more than $ 1000 a piece (if I remember correctly)
Not according to this article (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29510).
Woodcrest (FSB 1333MHz):
5160, 3.00GHz, 4Mb, $850
5150, 2.66GHz, 4Mb, $700
5140, 2.33GHz, 4Mb, $470
5130, 2.00GHz, 4Mb, $330
5120, 1.86GHz, 4Mb, $270
5110, 1.60GHz, 4Mb, $230

for comparison here's Conroe (FSB 1066MHz):
E6700, 2.67GHz, 4Mb, $529
E6600, 2.40GHz, 4Mb, $315
E6400, 2.13GHz, 2Mb, $240
E6300, 1.86GHz, 2Mb, $210

I think that the use of Conroe in iMacs or other small enclosure desktop, will depend on the thermal specs of the chip.
I believe that Apple will use Woodcrest for the PowerMacs in dual and quad configurations just because Woodcrest is more powerful, especially if Apple keep using big enclosures (like the current PM).
That also gives some hope for a mid-range headless Mac powered by Conroe chips...

Frank777

2006-03-15, 16:19

So we finally cross the much-anticipated 3Ghz barrier with Woodcrest?

Wow, the first-gen Intel Power Macs will be much more in-demand than I thought. ;)

Schnauzer

2006-03-20, 10:15

So we finally cross the much-anticipated 3Ghz barrier with Woodcrest?

Wow, the first-gen Intel Power Macs will be much more in-demand than I thought. ;)

3Ghz would be nice :)

Partial

2006-03-20, 10:38

Exactly. Conroe is based on the Pentium M. I wouldn't be surprised if it gave off comparable heat to the low-power G5.

I bet it gives off less. Form-factors are going to keep getting smaller and smaller

Partial

2006-03-20, 10:40

What I think will be very interesting is how Merom will compare to Conroe. They're essentially the same chip as I understand, with the primary difference being the watts used. It'll be interesting to see what the difference is.

edit:

Another thing that will be really interestng is how they decide to name these. From what i've read they're ditching the pentium name in favor of core, but if there is a yonah core duo out, and a merom out (which will also be called duo), how will the differentiate this to the average consumer?

ZachPruckowski

2006-03-20, 11:09

Those speeds/prices seem to knock out at least the top level Conroe for iMacs, no? I mean, if the top end iMac is dual 2.67 GHz, then you'd have a PM with roughly the same processor (2.66 GHz, dual, better FSB). Unless you think the PMs go all-Quad, which seems hard to believe.

That's why I forsee iMacs at 2.13 GHz and 2.40 GHz, same 17/20 inch sizes as before, with a dual 2.66, dual 3.0, and quad 2.66 GHz PMs

Baron Munchausen

2006-03-20, 11:54

Aren't we forgetting FSBs, cache and 64bit'edness of Woodcrest* ?

* I keep hearing "workshed!" from Raimi's Evil Dead 2 whenever I see the word "Woodcrest"...

shell

2006-03-20, 13:20

Conroe is just as much 64 bit as woodcrest is. I'm not certain why the 2.66 Ghz woodcrest is $170 more than it's conroe little bro, maybe the difference in bus speed is the only difference and maybe that is worth the extra cost? Even if both the high end iMac and the low end PowerMac are both around the same speed, i don't think that will be a problem. Heck right now the top of the line iMac is "faster" than the low-end PowerMac.

chucker

2006-03-20, 13:29

I'm not certain why the 2.66 Ghz woodcrest is $170 more than it's conroe little bro

Capability to run in a dual CPU setup. Makes CPUs expensive. (Compare Opterons: 1xx models for one CPU, 2xx models for two CPUs and 8xx models for four or eight CPUs. They are all the same basic CPUs, but they are certified for different amounts of CPUs.)

shell

2006-03-20, 21:20

That makes sense, although I can't say I've ever looked at the prices of opterons before. ;)

Baron Munchausen

2006-03-21, 05:46

Conroe is just as much 64 bit as woodcrest is.

My bad, sorry.

I can see the multi-die support being one thing. What about caches and FSB speeds?

Schnauzer

2006-03-22, 09:55

8xx models for four or eight CPUs. They are all the same basic CPUs, but they are certified for different amounts of CPUs.)
8x :err: :err: :err:

wow thats alot of power

j. smith

2006-03-22, 18:59

Heck right now the top of the line iMac is "faster" than the low-end PowerMac.

Only clock speed. The PowerMac's bus speed is 50% faster.

shell

2006-03-23, 00:27

Only clock speed. The PowerMac's bus speed is 50% faster.

Did you not see my use of quatation marks? :err:

kukito

2006-03-23, 19:19

PS Waiting for the Dual Core Turions too be realesed and kick that sorry little Core Duos ass.

David, the single-core Turion 64 is at best equal to the Pentium M. Yonah surpasses both. The Turion 64 X2 does not use a shared cache like Yonah does, which provides additional energy efficiency and performance. Conroe will crush the Athlon X2s and Woodcrest seems destined to do the same against the Opterons. The shrunk Athlon X2s and Opterons coming out next year might put AMD back in the driver seat. I always thought Apple would make a better partner with AMD, but Jobs knew last year what the rest of the world knows now...Conroe will rock!

j. smith

2006-03-23, 21:49

Did you not see my use of quatation marks? :err:

i saw them. just thought it was worth pointing out. not an attempt to correct you. clarifying (being more specific) what may be ambiguous to others.

chucker

2006-03-24, 03:27

David, the single-core Turion 64 is at best equal to the Pentium M. Yonah surpasses both. The Turion 64 X2 does not use a shared cache like Yonah does, which provides additional energy efficiency and performance.

On the other hand, the Turion 64, even in its first generation, has a faster bus than the Yonah.

Baron Munchausen

2006-03-24, 07:30

With the increase in cores and GHz, the bus speed is very important, just as carbs and exhaust piping is to an engine.

TednDi

2006-03-24, 07:54

3Ghz would be nice :)

by summer.

2007!

Anthem

2006-03-26, 20:08