BAspecialCake said:
Lets just hope the MBPs get the nod quickly - we are at 6 months with the MBP so an update now would not be unheard of. MB update might come along more quickly - the old cycles are probably not good indicators of the near future.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Core 2 Duo
- Thread starter Apple Corps
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lets just hope the MBPs get the nod quickly - we are at 6 months with the MBP so an update now would not be unheard of. MB update might come along more quickly - the old cycles are probably not good indicators of the near future.
I'm still running a 2GHz G5. You'll be fine. Especially if nothing comes out for a couple of months. Especially if it's only for .16 GHz, even if it's a new chip.jamesW135 said:
Here's something someone can explain to me.
We know that Merom uses 20% less power than Yonah, for 20% more power.
We therefore conclude that Merom will run cooler than Yonah.
But diesn't Merom have a slightly higher TDP than Yonah? Merom is 35, but I thought Yonah was oly 31 or something? Soe strange number anyway. I thought I saw that on one of these threads.
So what's the deal?
Thanks.
We know that Merom uses 20% less power than Yonah, for 20% more power.
We therefore conclude that Merom will run cooler than Yonah.
But diesn't Merom have a slightly higher TDP than Yonah? Merom is 35, but I thought Yonah was oly 31 or something? Soe strange number anyway. I thought I saw that on one of these threads.
So what's the deal?
Thanks.
Erasmus - you don't get both less power consumption AND higher performance, it is one or the other or some trade off combinations inbetween. What I have read suggests that Merom will provide a 20% improvement in performance for the same power consumption. OR, for the same performance level you will use less (20%?) power.
At least I think that is what I read.
At least I think that is what I read.
Apple Corps said:
OK, Thanks. Can someone however confirm the Yonah TDP?
Is the TDP based on the most powerful chip in the line, so if Merom has a TDP of 35, and it has a top speed of 2.33Ghz, would it make sense that a lower clocked processor, ie. 2Ghz would have a lower TDP? It makes sense that it does, but Intel could have designed all their chips to 35 to lower cost, I don't know.
DevilsRejection said:lets just hope the next macbook doesn't mimic old mcdonalds farm, or my sisters easy bake oven
some more battery life would be great too
gosh who am i kidding, i want apple to just make mac os x available in a box that i go get at a store and throw it on my (big fat and ugly according to this site) thinkpad (which ironically is smaller than even a 12 inch powerbook, weighs less too, and has double the battery life)
Your thinkpad gets 12 hours of battery life on a single battery? Impressive.
Apple Corps said:
Actually, from what I've read, Merom is simply more efficient- less power consumed AND more performance gained. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I've been getting.
I know Conroe certainly is...at full load, it generates less heat and consumes less power than ANY Pentium 4 or Pentium D does while idle, yet outperforms even the high end Athlon 64.
Apple Corps said:
You're mistaken, as GFLPraxis indicated. it is using 20% less power and is also 20% faster per clock than Yonah. This is due to the different microarchitecture used, Intel Core microarchitecture versus Pentium M (Intel Core (1) is kind of a misnomer)
Silentwave said:
Quite impressive if that is the case. Do you have any links that might help me get my "facts" a bit straighter?
This will be interesting to watch - what heat vs performance tradeoff "points" will Apple select to go to market with? With some improved thermal transfer capacity it would be go for all the performance you can wring out of the Merom (some battery life considerations). We all want max performance but there has been so much focus on the heat issue...............
Thanks
this will help set the record straight- 20% faster with the same power consumption as Yonah... this excerpt is from http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/07/18/core.2.duo.product.update/
Attachments
smartalic34 said:
smartalic34 - thanks for that link - based on that it sounds as if my original statement was correct - 20% more performance for the same power (heat) level. Or, one could go for the same performance with less power (heat).
Am I missing something in my logic / thinking?
I imagine they are as I understand it the Core 2 Duo chips can be plugged into the same sockets as the Core Solo/Duo so it should be trivial for all of the current machines to be updated.
I guess part of it is that I'm definitely not a professional user. If there is a big announcement at WWDC then it looks likely to be the PowerMac replacement, so it strikes me as possible that the other machines may not be mentioned even if they are due for an update soon. Is there any historical precedent for that sort of thing or is it more likely that the WWDC talk will mention everything that is both near and timetabled?
Thomas Harte said:
Thomas - there are some Apple "historians" that could answer your specific far better than I could.
The Merom updated MBPs might just be dropped into the line when they are ready if that is the major update. OTOH - if there are additions like: magnetic latches, BluRay, case/frame revisions - then we might see it hyped at WWDC. Yet, if SONY, Lenovo, et. al., get the Merom out fast than Apple would be better advised to get their Merom version out as fast so as to not look like a #2 or catch up supplier - don't let the competition steal the thunder as it were.
Lastly - past cycles will probably NOT be a good indicator of the new Intel to Intel comparison world of update cycles Apple is now in.
My two cents.
Will this upgrade to Core 2 Duo be considered RevB strictly speaking, for the iMacs? I mean, since it's a new generation of Intel chip as opposed to a speed bump of an existing chip, is it likely to cause any unknown bugs or dramas that the Core Duos didn't?
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Chuck.
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Chuck.
But do you have an opinion as to whether the new cycles will be on average shorter or longer? Will they even settle into a pattern?
Thomas Harte said:
Probably shorter, much shorter. But hey, in the PC world we buy even "old" chips without feeling any sense of guilt or shame at all, it is all about grabbing what's out there that's within out budget and suits our needs rather than buying that 1 or 2 offerings from the only game in town.
Ultimately it takes a wee bit of adjustment in mindsets.
Thomas - so much of this may be related to the definition of a "revision". My guess is that things will be quicker / shorter. Intel is now on a much more agressive product development path as AMD is a very nimle competitor. Apple will be - IMO - forced to plug the latest Intel cpu into their computers or fall behind - thus shorter cycles of upgrades / revisions / or whatever they may be called.
My thinking is driven by the fact that Apple can no longer sell the "yes, we do not have the AMD or Intel clock speed BUT we have the PPC design advantages". Intel to Intel comparisons now.
My thinking is driven by the fact that Apple can no longer sell the "yes, we do not have the AMD or Intel clock speed BUT we have the PPC design advantages". Intel to Intel comparisons now.