Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

angelp75 · Apr 18, 2006, 05:02 PM

Why did apple put only the intel Duo running 2.1 GHZ in all their new intel based macs? Why didn't they put the Intel Pentium D or The intel Extreme in some of their more higher end ones?

I'm sorry if I put this in the wrong part of the board cause I'm new to all this, if you can't tell...

Sorry if I sound dumb or noobish, however I think unless you ask, you don't know.

Dark Helmet · Apr 18, 2006, 05:06 PM

Heck I don't even know what the intel Extreme or Pentium D are.

Tomchu · Apr 18, 2006, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by 128shot

Why did apple put only the intel Duo running 2.1 GHZ in all their new intel based macs? Why didn't they put the Intel Pentium D or The intel Extreme in some of their more higher end ones?

I'm sorry if I put this in the wrong part of the board cause I'm new to all this, if you can't tell...

Sorry if I sound dumb or noobish, however I think unless you ask, you don't know.

Because those processors are based on a completely different architecture. It's older, slower, and much, much hotter. Stay away from all Pentium 4s.

Chuckit · Apr 18, 2006, 05:39 PM

Well, they actually haven't released the tower models yet. Thus far, only a laptop and the iMac, which is not really a high-end machine.

mduell · Apr 18, 2006, 06:45 PM

Tech Report benchmarked a Core Duo chip in a desktop and compared it to the Pentium D, Pentium Extreme Edition, and Athlon X2s. Result? Core Duo is Intel's fastest chip. It's also the best x86 chip for performance per watt.

production_coordinator · Apr 18, 2006, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Tech Report benchmarked a Core Duo chip in a desktop and compared it to the Pentium D, Pentium Extreme Edition, and Athlon X2s. Result? Core Duo is Intel's fastest chip. It's also the best x86 chip for performance per watt.

I was going to post that...

Also, with Intel, you are going to see Apple actually offering distinct product lines... There will be some great high end Macs coming along... 64 bit, much more ram, etc. etc.

The PPC lines got considerably blurred... especially on the laptop lines.

angelp75 · Apr 18, 2006, 07:11 PM

So if I understand correctly Apple will push Intel to develop slightly faster and desktop savvy Duos?!

voodoo · Apr 18, 2006, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

There will be some great high end Macs coming along... 64 bit, much more ram, etc. etc.

... at the risk of stating the obvious, there are already Macs that are 64-bit with obscene amount of RAM running at unsurpassed bus speed.

G5 I think they call the processors...

V

Salty · Apr 18, 2006, 08:30 PM

The Core Duo will end up in the Pro level Mac desktops once they've got 64 bit extensions, IE right after the WWDC. As for why no PD or P4EE, they're not as good as the Duo, therefore why use em?

mduell · Apr 18, 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by 128shot

So if I understand correctly Apple will push Intel to develop slightly faster and desktop savvy Duos?!

Apple has little to do with it; they're just one small OEM customer.
Intel doesn't, and won't, make any desktop-specific Core Duos. They will make desktop targeted chips with the upcoming Core Microarchitecture (which Core Duo does not use... I know, poor naming by Intel).

CharlesS · Apr 18, 2006, 08:49 PM

I think Apple should put the Pentium MMX in their laptops. That chip had cool letters after its name, one of them being an "X", so it must be faster![/color][/quote]I wish you all the best. Hopefully new Intel chips will make our beloved Mac even better.[quote][color=white ]

SpaceMonkey · Apr 18, 2006, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I think Apple should put the Pentium MMX in their laptops. That chip had cool letters after its name, one of them being an "X", so it must be faster!

Needs another X before I'll buy it.

JoshuaZ · Apr 18, 2006, 09:12 PM

three Xs would do it?

production_coordinator · Apr 19, 2006, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

... at the risk of stating the obvious, there are already Macs that are 64-bit with obscene amount of RAM running at unsurpassed bus speed.

G5 I think they call the processors...

V

I'm talking x86...

... and not to sound obvious... but the current iMac is out performing the highest end G5 in some areas...

Tomchu · Apr 19, 2006, 10:18 PM

The G5 was pathetic, with its glacial memory latencies and heat output.

Lateralus · Apr 19, 2006, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

... and not to sound obvious... but the current iMac is out performing the highest end G5 in some areas...

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening us. Especially since I cannot begin to fathom anything in which a dual-core 2GHz Core Duo would outperform a Quad 2.5GHz 970.

goMac · Apr 19, 2006, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by 128shot

Why did apple put only the intel Duo running 2.1 GHZ in all their new intel based macs? Why didn't they put the Intel Pentium D or The intel Extreme in some of their more higher end ones?

I'm sorry if I put this in the wrong part of the board cause I'm new to all this, if you can't tell...

Sorry if I sound dumb or noobish, however I think unless you ask, you don't know.

The Core Duo is faster than the Pentium D or the Pentium Extreme Edition.

It also runs cool enough so the laptop won't melt in your lap.

Gamoe · Apr 19, 2006, 11:19 PM

I suppose it's conceivable that Apple may get a better discount by purchasing Core Solo and Core Duo chips instead of mixing and matching. Of course, we've yet to see what will replace the G5 in the Power Mac spot. It's possible that those won't be "Core" chips at all.

I think Apple's choice to use the Core chips on desktops was not a bad one. The Mactels may be some of the most efficient (in power consumption) desktops out there now. And, although they are not portables, both the iMac and the Mac mini sport small or confined enclosures, so reducing power usage and thus heat is definitely not a bad thing. Besides, you know how Jobs likes quiet and preferably fan-less Macs.

driven · Apr 19, 2006, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening us. Especially since I cannot begin to fathom anything in which a dual-core 2GHz Core Duo would outperform a Quad 2.5GHz 970.

I was asking the same question.

Salty · Apr 19, 2006, 11:29 PM

Intel is going to be putting Core chips into all the computers they make processors for in the future. Core is the new Pentium branding. They're retiring Pentium. That said I wonder if the Power Macs might get Xeons.

lpkmckenna · Apr 19, 2006, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I'm talking x86...

... and not to sound obvious... but the current iMac is out performing the highest end G5 in some areas...

Whoa! I think you've had too much kool-aid tonight, son.

Tomchu · Apr 19, 2006, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening us. Especially since I cannot begin to fathom anything in which a dual-core 2GHz Core Duo would outperform a Quad 2.5GHz 970.

Anything that isn't multi-threaded or doesn't scale well across more than 1-2 threads will run better on a single 2 GHz Yonah core than on a single G5 core. The G5 doesn't have much going for it as far as IPC goes compared to Yonah -- and even less if you factor in memory bandwidth/latency.

Salty · Apr 20, 2006, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Whoa! I think you've had too much kool-aid tonight, son.

Maybe not the Quad, but the other PMs are being wooped.

production_coordinator · 09:45 PM

Ha ha... "My quad CPU computer can beat your dual CPU system!"

Also, YES, the $1,699 iMac can out perform a $3,300 quad G5 in some areas... here is one example of a Quad G5 with 6+GB of ram being outperformed by an iMac with 512 MB of ran. Sure, it's only a couple of areas... but I think the numbers say volumes. Also, this CPU was designed as a portable CPU... I can't wait to see what they have in store for the MacTower Pro.

http://www.macintouch.com/imacintel/bench.html

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Whoa! I think you've had too much kool-aid tonight, son.

Notice how I said "in some areas" They are called benchmarks. You should check them out before making outlandish remarks.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening us. Especially since I cannot begin to fathom anything in which a dual-core 2GHz Core Duo would outperform a Quad 2.5GHz 970.

voodoo · Apr 20, 2006, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

The G5 was pathetic, with its glacial memory latencies and heat output.

No, not really. The G5 also *is* as opposed to "was".

Why don't you make yourself scarce trollboy?

V

Lateralus · Apr 20, 2006, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Ha ha... "My quad CPU computer can beat your dual CPU system!"

Also, YES, the $1,699 iMac can out perform a $3,300 quad G5 in some areas... here is one example of a Quad G5 with 6+GB of ram being outperformed by an iMac with 512 MB of ran. Sure, it's only a couple of areas... but I think the numbers say volumes. Also, this CPU was designed as a portable CPU... I can't wait to see what they have in store for the MacTower Pro.

http://www.macintouch.com/imacintel/bench.html

Notice how I said "in some areas" They are called benchmarks. You should check them out before making outlandish remarks.

...You're so full of **** you're glowing brown.

Tomchu · Apr 20, 2006, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

No, not really.

"No, not really" what? Why don't you be more specific, apologist?

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc...i=2436&p=2

Note that the Pentium 4's latency was already an industry-low for desktop computing. A 2.7 GHz G5 has *double* that of any other platform. That's crappy. That's really crappy. Hell, even Apple admits that the G5 is glacial in this regard: http://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/ve/g5.html (Scroll down to "Latency")

Originally Posted by voodoo

The G5 also *is* as opposed to "was".

The G5 is last-year's tech as far as I'm concerned. The Athlon 64 had it trumped in nearly every aspect.

Originally Posted by voodoo

Why don't you make yourself scarce trollboy?

Why don't you get a clue, rather than flat-out denying whatever negative thing someone says about Apple?

production_coordinator · Apr 21, 2006, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

...You're so full of **** you're glowing brown.

I reference a link that clearly shows three areas (OpenGL Graphics, User Interface and Disk Test) where the Core Duo outperformed the quad G5, and this is all you had to come back with?

I never said a Core Duo could beat a quad G5 in most areas, but if it is beating a quad G5 in a few areas, I wonder how it does against a dual G5. The fact is, the Core Duo (a chip designed for portables) is very fast. I for one can't wait to see what Apple can do in the fall. A Quad MacTower Pro running CS3, Quark, MS applications has the potential to be very speedy.

himself · Apr 21, 2006, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I reference a link that clearly shows three areas (OpenGL Graphics, User Interface and Disk Test) where the Core Duo outperformed the quad G5, and this is all you had to come back with?

I never said a Core Duo could beat a quad G5 in most areas, but if it is beating a quad G5 in a few areas, I wonder how it does against a dual G5. The fact is, the Core Duo (a chip designed for portables) is very fast. I for one can't wait to see what Apple can do in the fall. A Quad MacTower Pro running CS3, Quark, MS applications has the potential to be very speedy.

I can see your point where the intel processors perform well enough to catch peoples attention, but the results shown there are not a factor of the the processors.

The interface and opengl results are a result of the graphics hardware, which don't have equivalent counterparts on PPC Macs (that I am aware of). The disk test has to do with the disk controller hardware, likely tailored for the new intel hardware by intel.

In every other test, the quad soundly tapped that ass, as would be expected.

production_coordinator · Apr 21, 2006, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by himself

I can see your point where the intel processors perform well enough to catch peoples attention, but the results shown there are not a factor of the the processors.

The interface and opengl results are a result of the graphics hardware, which don't have equivalent counterparts on PPC Macs (that I am aware of). The disk test has to do with the disk controller hardware, likely tailored for the new intel hardware by intel.

In every other test, the quad soundly tapped that ass, as would be expected.

And I'll respectfully say that I was stretching a bit to get those numbers... but to be fair, we are comparing a two dual core processor system to a single dual core processor system. When we start to put one dual core G5 to one Cord duo... I think it levels the playing field a bit.

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

granted... the dual 2.0 G5 beats the iMac in most areas...

As the story says, the Core Duo is a low power CPU designed for a portable... I can't wait for a Quad Conroe powered MacTower Pro.

Millennium · Apr 21, 2006, 01:27 PM

They went with the Core Duo because they believe that in the long run, it will be cheaper for them to use that chip.

Chuckit · Apr 21, 2006, 01:28 PM

They think it will be cheaper for them to use a more expensive chip?

Tomchu · Apr 21, 2006, 01:42 PM

In the long run, that probably makes sense. The Core Duos are a much simpler design. Simpler design == easier to make, easier to improve. Hence, cheaper in the long run.

himself · Apr 21, 2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

They went with the Core Duo because they believe that in the long run, it will be cheaper for them to use that chip.

Everything I've seen indicates that the G5 is cheaper than any of Intel's comparable offerings, CoreDuo included.

Lateralus · Apr 21, 2006, 02:15 PM

It is.

Even the 2.5GHz 970MP used in the Quad only runs around $170 from IBM. And the 1.67GHz 7447A G4 used in the last PowerBooks only runs around $70 from Freescale.

production_coordinator · Apr 21, 2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They think it will be cheaper for them to use a more expensive chip?

There is more to it than just the CPU.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/eme...9244663,00.htm

Intel very well could create the whole widget for Apple. Motherboard, CPU and other chips [Apple does much more than just CPUs]. When you consider that... yes... they very well could be MUCH cheaper in the short run... let alone the long run.

Also, we have no idea what deal Apple/Intel made... or Apple/IBM. It's not like Apple or Intel would ever give out that information.

One nice thing about going with Intel... is that Apple can pass on a number of CPUs... or wait for one that they like [as Dell, HP, etc can pick them up]. With Apple being the primary purchaser of Moto/IBMs chips... they didn't really have much choice.

production_coordinator · Apr 21, 2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

In the long run, that probably makes sense. The Core Duos are a much simpler design. Simpler design == easier to make, easier to improve. Hence, cheaper in the long run.

Well, to be fair, the G4/G5 were also simpler designs...

...but you are correct. It is a much nicer design as compared to Intel's pervious CPUs. The PIV is shaping up to be a very ugly CPU. I'm happy to see that Apple avoided it.