Merom apparently works without a hitch in current Intel Mac's

[JFreak]

I've done this once, but it was replacing a 386 with a 486 if I remember right.

You must be wrong. All x86 processors have been pin-incompatible with each other, and until Pentiums, the chips were not soldered on board (except for the SX versions that did not have the floating point math unit).

Actually removing the old processor is the hardest part because alle pins have to be hot so you can pull it out of the board.

Considering the low temperature where the chip begins meltdown, you would have to have been _very_ quick in removing the chip with a conventional soldering iron. Chips are soldered with a specialized tool, which solders all pins at once - because heat kills chips.

The trick is pushing the new prosessor down enough so the pins stick out a bit on the back side of the board.

Processor pins do not get through the board. They are soldered on the surface. Maybe you have been soldering 8086 or 80286 chip sockets?

with some training, you can do a line in 3 secondes.

Soldering tin melts at about 200 degrees celsius, and you don't want the chip to reach even +60 degrees. Considering how well metals conduct heat, I'd say 3 seconds kills the chip. Automated surface soldering tools do it in a fraction of a second, guess why?

 

[generik]

One question is... does the current chipset support the 64 bit extensions?

Meaning, if you swopped the processors will you be able to address > 4GB of memory? Not that most of us would need to but it is good to know...

 

[eric67]

not true

We already knew that Merom was pin compatible but it was unknown whether the firmware would have any play in it. It's now shown that it doesn't matter at all and upgrading is as easy as pie.

it was known since 6 months (at least) that the Merom will be pin-to-pin compatible and will be fully supported by the Napa platform developped for the Yonah. The Napa Refresh microarchitecture platform will only be there to unweil the power of the Merom inclucing 64 bits.
Do not take it personaly, but this news does not contain an once of previously unknown information. in addition, one does not talk about firmware for a CPU

in addition, even so the Merom can be backwards compatible, Apple might be able to prevent the backwards usage by introducing some hardware check in future OSX revision. But I do not think that Cupertino will start playing this type of game.

 

[WildPalms]

You must be wrong. All x86 processors have been pin-incompatible with each other, and until Pentiums, the chips were not soldered on board (except for the SX versions that did not have the floating point math unit).



Considering the low temperature where the chip begins meltdown, you would have to have been _very_ quick in removing the chip with a conventional soldering iron. Chips are soldered with a specialized tool, which solders all pins at once - because heat kills chips.



Processor pins do not get through the board. They are soldered on the surface. Maybe you have been soldering 8086 or 80286 chip sockets?



Soldering tin melts at about 200 degrees celsius, and you don't want the chip to reach even +60 degrees. Considering how well metals conduct heat, I'd say 3 seconds kills the chip. Automated surface soldering tools do it in a fraction of a second, guess why?

You are 100% right Freak. I tried this once in my silly youth and discovered the hard way how fragile CPU's are.

 

[Hugh]

Upgrading...

Well I knew I was going to up grade the processor in my Mini CoreSolo (money is tight) to the CoreDuo, but I have another option altogether... Oh I don't think the graphics card is that bad, not if you have a fast enought processpr in there.

Like someone else already said, 'The macMini is turning into the cube.'


Hugh

 

[AidenShaw]

One question is... does the current chipset support the 64 bit extensions?

Meaning, if you swopped the processors will you be able to address > 4GB of memory? Not that most of us would need to but it is good to know...

Yes, you can use the extensions (run a 64-bit operating system, run 64-bit applications using 64-bit registers, get the extra speed (typical 20%) that comes from the ISA changes in 64-bit mode).

You wouldn't be able to add more than 4 GiB of RAM, though. That's a chipset limitation.

With x64, there's a good reason (added performance) to run 64-bit applications even if you have 4 GiB of RAM or less.

With the PowerPC G5, 64-bit would usually be slightly slower than 32-bit - so only a few specialized applications would benefit from running 64-bit with 4 GiB or less.

 

[milo]

anyone have the balls to try this on the harder to reach chip in the iMac? can anybody tell me exactly how difficult it would be to reach the chip, since i haven't actually opened mine up yet.

This was done months ago, within a week or so of the iMac shipping.

Why anyone would wanna do this is beyond me! the current napa platform (which yonah was made for) won't be able to utilize the 64-bit merom's full potential anyway. the merom is built for the upcoming santa rosa platform which comes out early 2007.

Actually Intel says they're going to release Merom on the current platform, the next mobo won't be out for awhile after Merom ships. Sure, you won't get the full perfomance benefits, but a boost is a boost.

Like someone else already said, 'The macMini is turning into the cube.'

But at a third the price. The cube was a great box. It flopped because it was vastly overpriced, luckily they got that right the second time around.

 

[DeathChill]

it was known since 6 months (at least) that the Merom will be pin-to-pin compatible and will be fully supported by the Napa platform developped for the Yonah. The Napa Refresh microarchitecture platform will only be there to unweil the power of the Merom inclucing 64 bits.
Do not take it personaly, but this news does not contain an once of previously unknown information. in addition, one does not talk about firmware for a CPU

in addition, even so the Merom can be backwards compatible, Apple might be able to prevent the backwards usage by introducing some hardware check in future OSX revision. But I do not think that Cupertino will start playing this type of game.

That is exactly what I meant. A hardware check in firmware (via EFI) or a hardware check in OS X. This just confirms that everything works great without any problems (as well as the fact it doesn't appear to overheat it).

As I said we ALREADY KNEW they were pin-to-pin compatible, it's just shown that it will not present a problem. This isn't to say that "WOW WHAT WERE THE CHANCES IT'D WORK?" This is to show that we figured it'd work and it works without a hitch. It's just confirmation.

As well, not to do with this post:

How come you guys are calling it x64? What's wrong with x86-64 (which I feel is more appropriate)? I just think it's kind of funny to use Microsoft's marketing designation for 64-bit on a Mac forum. xD

 

[AidenShaw]

How come you guys are calling it x64? What's wrong with x86-64 (which I feel is more appropriate)? I just think it's kind of funny to use Microsoft's marketing designation for 64-bit on a Mac forum. xD

x64 is shorter, and not just MS....

Note ^ "Sun x64" !

And besides, if Microsoft uses "x64" that means that 97% of the market is using "x64"

 

[DeathChill]

x64 is shorter, and not just MS....

Note ^ "Sun x64" !

And besides, if Microsoft uses "x64" that means that 97% of the market is using "x64"

Well, Microsoft and Sun use the term x64. Though it's true that 97% of the market will be using x64 then though.

 

[tonyl]

Merom is still under testing, the final products may different from now.

 

[rneglia]

rewire?

Well, for example rewiring Propellerheads Reason and Ableton Live, throwing in some more VSTi's and tons of WAV tracks. CPU load is pretty hefty on my old G4 PowerBook 1.25, but I would clearly benefit from a Merom CPU here. It's not just about games, you know?

I like the sound of this, but I'm not sure why. What do you mean "rewire" Ableton Live?

p.s. I use Live 5.2 on a PC

 

[heart7]

Mac Mini Intel 2.33

I was easily able to easily swap the 1.66 CPU for a 2.33 Intel Core Duo (purchased on the internet), also bumped up the RAM to 2GB and put in a Hitach Travelstar 100GB 7200 drive. I have Bootcamp and Windows XP installed. I also put a Antec notebook cooler under it just in case and it runs cool at 47-50° C. The system is a rocketship.

 

[nsayer]

Now that Merom is out...

http://processorfinder.intel.com shows a 478 and 479 pin version. Which is the right one for upgrading an Intel mini?

 

[mrgreen4242]

Wrong. Older graphics cards could not handle high resolutions and high refresh rates. Also, OS X's interface is driven by OpenGL (Quartz Extreme) so a better graphics card WILL help.

I run 10.3 on the PB in my sig (Wallstreet 250mhz) which has an 8mb (or was it 4mb?) ATI card. It's vastly slower than anything on the market today. The GMA950 is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE faster. I can plug that laptop into a projector and run it at 1028x768 (it's LCD, so refresh rate is a bit different, but there's no ghosting or anything) for presentations without any problems at all. It will even do expose and genie effects without much problem.

Point is, for the amount of power that MOST of OSX's QE effects require, the GMA950 is overkill. There are apps that use the GPU to speed up some processes, but if you're running them you probably aren't in the mini's target market anyways.

 

[Eidorian]

http://processorfinder.intel.com shows a 478 and 479 pin version. Which is the right one for upgrading an Intel mini?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCPGA6

 

[nsayer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCPGA6

How does that square with the processor finder link I posted which indicates there is a 478 pin version as well?

 

[Eidorian]

How does that square with the processor finder link I posted which indicates there is a 478 pin version as well?

I have no clue why they indicate a Socket 478 version. Newegg lists the same thing for Core Duo chips. It's Socket 479 (pins) but it's NOT the same Socket 479 found on Pentium-M.