Whats the difference between Core Duo and Pentium D?

[Lord Blackadder]

On a related note, I'm glad they're finally ditching the "Pentium" name. It's pretty played out and has actually been meaningless for years (586 anyone?).

 

[MacsRgr8]

So...

Yonah for iMac / MacBook / MacBook Pro / Mac mini
Conroe for Mac Pro (? successor of the Power Mac)
Woodcrest for Mac Server (? successor of the Xserve)

Or...
Maybe a Mac Pro Light, i.e. Yonah Core Duo in Mac Pro casing.... (with Radeon X1900 XT... perfect gaming Mac in XP)
Maybe a Mac Pro Advanced, i.e. a Woodcrest in Mac Pro casing....

Whatever... Intel does give Apple possibilities

 

[BlizzardBomb]

So...

Yonah for iMac / MacBook / MacBook Pro / Mac mini
Conroe for Mac Pro (? successor of the Power Mac)
Woodcrest for Mac Server (? successor of the Xserve)

Or...
Maybe a Mac Pro Light, i.e. Yonah Core Duo in Mac Pro casing.... (with Radeon X1900 XT... perfect gaming Mac in XP)
Maybe a Mac Pro Advanced, i.e. a Woodcrest in Mac Pro casing....

Whatever... Intel does give Apple possibilities

Conroe is cheaper than a Yonah so that's the way to go for a "Mac Pro Light" as you call it (personally I want to see a Cube 2 ). I'd also like to see Conroe in an iMac (come on its a desktop!).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Whatever... Intel does give Apple possibilities

Having more options can't hurt!

I think that the Xserve (if it survives the transition) will use a different chip than the PowerMac, and there is a possibility of a more complicated line of PowerMacs, with more options on the lower end, like with your Mac Pro Lite. Not sure that a Core Duo would be ideal for gaming though - I would guess a Conroe-based CPU.

It would be nice if we started to see more games take advantage of dual CPU/core systems, there is so much performnce potential there.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Having more options can't hurt!

Eh.. right... haha... having more options is a possibiltiy..

I think that the Xserve (if it survives the transition) will use a different chip than the PowerMac, and there is a possibility of a more complicated line of PowerMacs, with more options on the lower end, like with your Mac Pro Lite. Not sure that a Core Duo would be ideal for gaming though - I would guess a Conroe-based CPU.

Based on the benchmarks witnessed on the iMac Core Duo with "only" the 128 MB VRAM X1600 mobility, me thinks this CPU is excellent for gaming. If the Conroe will be cheaper than the Yonah, as stated by BlizzardBomb, then this CPU will be the way to go!
Imaging... Conroe with SLI GeForces or Cross Fire Radeons.... (drool)

It would be nice if we started to see more games take advantage of dual CPU/core systems, there is so much performnce potential there.

Ooohh yes. I thought Quake 4 would be the first to do this.
Now, if only Quake 4 for Mac is going to support this. My Quad with GeForce 7800 is dying to give it a go...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Based on the benchmarks witnessed on the iMac Core Duo with "only" the 128 MB VRAM X1600 mobility, me thinks this CPU is excellent for gaming. If the Conroe will be cheaper than the Yonah, as stated by BlizzardBomb, then this CPU will be the way to go!
Imaging... Conroe with SLI GeForces or Cross Fire Radeons.... (drool)

Don't get me wrong, the Core Duo is an excellent performer...but like you pointed out, rumor is that Conroe will be cheaper and just as fast, making it better suited to the desktop.

Either way the consumer wins, really.

 

[disconap]

imacs had a g5 in them, i think they will get conroe for heat/price/preformance. whats with everyone wanting the imac to have bargen basement preformance when you can get faster preformance for less money from conroe.

Less money I understand. But the imac is supposed to be a home machine, not a workhorse, so I don't understand complaints about them, really (not directed at you, just in general).

 

[StealthRider]

In regards to all of the Xserve speculation, I could certainly see there being two lines of Xserves- one remaining PowerPC, and the other switching to Intel. There is a HUGE market for PowerPC servers due to the RISC architecture.

 

[matticus008]

1.66Ghz for US$2000? I don't know what you're smoking bud, but Mercedes of computing or not that $250 chip deserves to be in a $799 computer, not a $2000 one.

I'm not sure where you're pulling the $250 price from, but the fair comparison is retail pricing (because exact manufacturer pricing is never known and is not constant), and the Core Duo T2300's retail price was pretty close to that $799. Point being, the other notebooks with the same Core Duo retail for about $2000, too. So, in summation, definitely not a $250 chip, and definitely in the right notebook price range.

 

[combatcolin]

Perhaps Apple will do the same in the future. Granted, the iMac/Mac Mini already fill the consumer slot, but there could be a market for a cheaper tower that offers more expandability than the iMac/Mini, but isn't as expensive at the low end as the PowerMacs are now. Not everyone wants a built-in screen, and many people would like an upgradeable video card.

THUD!

CombatColin slaps Visa Card on the Apple store counter.

 

[whooleytoo]

Perhaps Apple will do the same in the future. Granted, the iMac/Mac Mini already fill the consumer slot, but there could be a market for a cheaper tower that offers more expandability than the iMac/Mini, but isn't as expensive at the low end as the PowerMacs are now. Not everyone wants a built-in screen, and many people would like an upgradeable video card.

I'd LOVE to see that too, but I can't see it happening. It would eat too much into Apple's (higher margin) Power Mac sales.

People complain a lot about Macs being expensive, but to me it's more a case of choice. Macs are good value, IF you want all of what you're buying. For instance, the Mac I'd love to buy wouldn't need:

Big hard drive.
Internal drive bays.
DVD burner (or, indeed, CD burner)
Lots of expansion slots.
Internal screen.
Gigabit Ethernet.
One button mouse.
Integrated iSight.
Wifi.

But it would need:

Fast memory & disk.
Upgradable graphics (in a fast slot)
Fast CPU

Unfortunately, the closest thing is a Power Mac, which means I'm having to pay for things in column A which I don't need.

 

[dr_lha]

I'm not sure where you're pulling the $250 price from, but the fair comparison is retail pricing (because exact manufacturer pricing is never known and is not constant), and the Core Duo T2300's retail price was pretty close to that $799. Point being, the other notebooks with the same Core Duo retail for about $2000, too. So, in summation, definitely not a $250 chip, and definitely in the right notebook price range.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819111180&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch&ATT=19-111-180

T2300 Core Duo $239 in box.

 

[Mord]

Well, if you look at Apple hardware from the past, there have been times, like back in the days of the Performa, where Apple sold two desktop lines: PowerMacs (with a 604/604e processor) for pros and Performas (with a 603/603e) for consumers. Some of the cheaper PowerMacs (like the 6400/6500) also had 603 series CPUs.

Perhaps Apple will do the same in the future. Granted, the iMac/Mac Mini already fill the consumer slot, but there could be a market for a cheaper tower that offers more expandability than the iMac/Mini, but isn't as expensive at the low end as the PowerMacs are now. Not everyone wants a built-in screen, and many people would like an upgradeable video card.

In my opinion, Apple will probably go with a single type of CPU for the next "PowerMac" line, but who knows?

apple will not and cannot go from a quad to a dual, conroe is for the imac only, the imac currently uses yonah as an interim and will use conroe, heck they had a G5 in their before hand i think they can handle a 30-40w conroe.

as for your wish for something between a mini and a powermac, maybe a g4 cube, but no you went and bought a tower dident you, it's your own fault for not buying one.

 

[Mord]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819111180&CMP=OTC-pr1c3watch&ATT=19-111-180

T2300 Core Duo $239 in box.

i think he meant the t2600.

 

[dr_lha]

i think he meant the t2600.

Nah, the guy he was responding to was talking about a 1.66Mhz chip, i.e. a T2300.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Intel's Current Lineup:

Cheap Mobile: Celeron M (Single Core Crippled Pentium-M)
Cheap Desktop: Celeron (Crippled Pentium-4)
Mobile: Yonah/CoreDuo (Dual Core Pentium-M)
Desktop: Pentium D (Dual Core Pentium-4)
Server: Xeon (Dual Core Pentium-4 or Pentium-M, depending on model)

Intel's Lineup by next year:

Cheap Mobile: Yonah? Crippled Merom? I'm guessing Yonah.
Cheap Desktop: Crippled Conroe? dunno.
Mobile: Merom (Dual Core New Core, <40 watts*)
Desktop: Conroe (Dual Core New Core <65 watts*)
Server: Woodcrest (Dual Core New Core <85 watts*)

The new core used in Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest is much faster than either the Pentium-M core used in Yonah, or the Pentium-4 core used in the P4/PD.

*not completely sure on the power numbers, it's been a while since I looked it up.

 

[matticus008]

Nah, the guy he was responding to was talking about a 1.66Mhz chip, i.e. a T2300.

I did actually mean to include the T2600, since he was talking about the whole line, using the "high" price to associate with the higher-end MBP. (Just like you mean GHz, not 'Mhz' which doesn't even exist.) Computer lines at Apple are partially subsidized (like most other technology companies). The price difference between absolute-high end and second-up is massive, even though the performance difference is never that high, so lower-end models pick up a little bit of the slack.

At any rate, the CPU remains at an appropriate price and performance level for the MacBook Pro. The massive price slashes aren't going to impact Apple pricing until the next new product. That has been their SOP for many years.

 

[dr_lha]

Originally Posted by generik
1.66Ghz for US$2000? I don't know what you're smoking bud, but Mercedes of computing or not that $250 chip deserves to be in a $799 computer, not a $2000 one.

I'm not sure where you're pulling the $250 price from, but the fair comparison is retail pricing (because exact manufacturer pricing is never known and is not constant), and the Core Duo T2300's retail price was pretty close to that $799. Point being, the other notebooks with the same Core Duo retail for about $2000, too. So, in summation, definitely not a $250 chip, and definitely in the right notebook price range.

Funny, it certainly reads like you meant the 1.66Ghz chip. If you didn't then you certainly didn't read generik's original post.

 

[matticus008]

Funny, it certainly reads like you meant the 1.66Ghz chip. If you didn't then you certainly didn't read generik's original post.

I was talking about the MacBook Pro (which doesn't come with the 1.66GHz processor at all), so I really fail to see what your point is in all of this.

 

[dr_lha]

I was talking about the MacBook Pro (which doesn't come with the 1.66GHz processor at all), so I really fail to see what your point is in all of this.

Point is, perhaps you should read a post before replying to it.

generik's original post was about how it was ridiculous that a $250 chip was being put into a $2000 computer. Remember when the MacBook Pro was announced it was going to come with the 1.66Ghz chip?

Luckily Apple decided that it was also pretty stupid and upped the CPU speed when they shipped the MacBook Pro.

You replying to my post is all about you not being able to admit that you got your post wrong and trying with all your might to save face.

Fair enough, this is the internet, I'm used to this behaviour, but honestly you would have looked alot better if you just said. "Fair enough, I misread the original post" and be done with it.

 

[matticus008]

Point is, perhaps you should read a post before replying to it.

generik's original post was about how it was ridiculous that a $250 chip was being put into a $2000 computer. Remember when the MacBook Pro was announced it was going to come with the 1.66Ghz chip?

Luckily Apple decided that it was also pretty stupid and upped the CPU speed when they shipped the MacBook Pro.

You replying to my post is all about you not being able to admit that you got your post wrong and trying with all your might to save face.

Fair enough, this is the internet, I'm used to this behaviour, but honestly you would have looked alot better if you just said. "Fair enough, I misread the original post" and be done with it.

See, but the thing is that it wasn't a $250 chip when the MacBook Pro was announced. It was a $600 one. Yeah, I got the model number wrong, but you've been unable to get "GHz" correct thus far, and you might want to go back and read MY original post where it says "T2300 was" and not T2300 "is." I read the original post and chalked it up to a rant and nothing more, because both the price and the speed are wrong. How, again, is my typo any worse than the several you've made?