Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Autumn · 11:56 AM

Update: July 12th According to Appleinsider and Macrumors.com, the next iMac will get the Conroe. Thinksecret is still inisisting Merom will be in the next iMac.

Title says it all!

The Inquirer reports on comments by Intel CEO Paul Otellini at the financial analyst's spring meeting.

According to the article, Intel is planning on delivering Woodcrest (server) is due in June, Conroe (desktop) in July, and Merom (mobile) in August. Apple is expected to take advantage of these new processors for upcoming designs.

Beyond these expected updates, Intel is aggressively working towards future architectures:

This year's processors will start at a 65-nm process and quickly move to 45-nm. All future processors are optimized for performance-per-watt -- one of the features that attracted Apple to Intel's processors.

Check out the performance of Conroe: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

harrisjamieh · Apr 30, 2006, 02:46 PM

It is very unlikely the iMac will ever use Conroe, as I doubt there is the room in the iMacs small enclosure for a full, dual core desktop processor, hence the reason the iMac currently has a laptop processor in it. For this reason, I expect that the iMac will eventually be upgraded to Merom.

Tuoder · Apr 30, 2006, 03:06 PM

I agree. I think it will be Merom,

mduell · Apr 30, 2006, 03:36 PM

Probably Merom.

The G5 iMac CPUs had a TDP ranging from 20-40W; the Core Duo iMac CPUs have a TDP of 31W. Merom will have a TDP below 35W, while Conroe may be as high as 65W.

BikerJonTN · Apr 30, 2006, 03:51 PM

And for those who don't understand "TDP:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point

Autumn · Apr 30, 2006, 05:37 PM

Anyway, I think I'll grab an iMac next Jan. or so when Leopard comes out. Hope for the best I guess.

Tuoder · Apr 30, 2006, 05:59 PM

I want the 13.3" MBP when Leopard comes out. That is, if the rumor sites are correct about the 13.3" MBP. I don't know. I might just get the small MBP when it comes out, regardless of OS.

Autumn · May 6, 2006, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoder

I want the 13.3" MBP when Leopard comes out. That is, if the rumor sites are correct about the 13.3" MBP. I don't know. I might just get the small MBP when it comes out, regardless of OS.

13.3'' MBP gonna be sweet. But I already got my powerbook and my fiance has a 12' iBook. WE're not gonna get a laptop for a while.

So iMac will be the best bet. I wish they would use more advanced video card in iMac. At least for BTO. Something like 256mb(512mb) of ATI x1900 or NVIDIA® GeForceTM Go 7900 GTX would be awesome!

I know apple computer is not known for gaming. But now they are using Intel chip and boot camp for windows. Apple should take advantage to offer better gaming experience. Esp. in desktop or all-in-one desktop.

ouisch · May 10, 2006, 08:14 PM

Im thinking to buy a Imac to make some graphic design and other things, i know i should buy a PMG5 but i don;t have the money Because i'm form Argentina and it's so dificult earn money, you know.
I want to know if is better to wait to Merom chip's going out to buy a iMac or if gonna be the same.
What are the advantages of a 64 bits chip?

thanks, sorry for my english. je.

angelmb · May 11, 2006, 10:40 AM

A friend of me is looking for an intel powered iMac to replace his whole desktop experience which covers a Power Mac G4 plus a windows xp box, needless to say Boot Camp is music for his hears… but he has one complain, just one, he have read somewhere that Vista is going to need 64 bits CPUs to run, is that accurate?, if so that could mean the current intel iMac would not be able to run Vista once it hits LOL the market?

ouisch · May 11, 2006, 10:58 AM

yes, i read the same, so he could buy an imac now and then replace the chip, because it can be upgraded, but for me it's a lot of money, i think i prefer to wait to Q3.

P · May 13, 2006, 08:50 AM

There are several Conroe models planned. The ones with an E at the beginning of the modelnumber use between 50-75W. The ones with a T in front use 25-50W, or more or less what the current models use. I'd say we'll see iMacs with "T" Conroes, although what the difference between those and most Meroms is is more than I knows at this point.

The first Conroes will be the "Core Duo 2 Extreme"-models followed by the highest E-models, so if we see an iMac with Conroe it won't be until later.

Steve Bosell · Jun 6, 2006, 10:42 PM

I am getting ready to replace my DA G4 with a duel 933 upgrade. I really hope there will be a Conroe chip in the new iMacs, encoding h264 video takes a TON of horsepower. Plus, the iMac is a desktop after all.

Eug Wanker · Jun 6, 2006, 10:50 PM

Note:

MacBook uses Core Duo with TDP 31 Watts - Operating temperature 85 degrees C at maximum load
iMac uses Core Duo with TDP 31 Watts - Operating temperature 55 degrees C at maximum load

While it does make sense for the next iMac to use Merom, I don't think Conroe is out of the question. Or possibly the top end Core Duo, if Merom knocks the Core Duo price down enough to make a 2.33 GHz Core Duo priced in range.

Originally Posted by angelmb

A friend of me is looking for an intel powered iMac to replace his whole desktop experience which covers a Power Mac G4 plus a windows xp box, needless to say Boot Camp is music for his hears… but he has one complain, just one, he have read somewhere that Vista is going to need 64 bits CPUs to run, is that accurate?, if so that could mean the current intel iMac would not be able to run Vista once it hits LOL the market?

That is incorrect. Vista runs just fine on 32-bit CPUs.

Simon · Jun 7, 2006, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Steve Bosell

I really hope there will be a Conroe chip in the new iMacs, encoding h264 video takes a TON of horsepower. Plus, the iMac is a desktop after all.

Two points:

• Yes, the iMac is a desktop, but it's always been a desktop using what Apple otherwise used in its portables. I look at the iMac as a desktop with basically notebook specs. That indeed makes sense since Apple wants the iMac to focus on design, efficiency and space-saving. There is no room for the cooling or expansion capabilities of their 'real' desktop which is the Power Mac/Mac Pro - even though it's not literally a desktop. It's been a long time since Apple's 7x00 Power Mac which would close the gap here. All in all, just because the iMac sits on a desk, does not necessarily indicate Apple will use different components than what they use in the MB/MBP. The thermal issues are similar.

• There is certainly the possibility of seeing Conroe in an iMac. If Apple would use Woodcrest for their Mac Pro (at least on the high end) there's a good chance we'll see Conroe in the iMac rather than Merom. If however only the XServe gets Woodcrest and the Mac Pro goes Conroe across the board, I'd rather expect to see Merom in the iMac. In the past Apple has sold iMacs with the specs of the low-end PowerMac so obviously they're weren't too concerned with losing Power Mac sales to the iMac. That definitely increases the chance of seeing Conroe in an iMac. A big question remains: Will they be able to go from a TDP 31W Yonah to a TDP 65W Conroe without making major modifications to the case and fan design? The TDP 35W Merom sounds a lot easier to get in there.

harrisjamieh · Jun 7, 2006, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

The thermal issues are similar.

Not that similar; My iMac barely gets above 50oC at a push, whereas my MacBook rockets to up to 85oC. This is a pretty different situation IMO.

Also, the iMac had a G5 in it, when the laptops could only ever dream of such a thing due to the heat they produce. I really don't think the thermal issues are that similar

Simon · Jun 7, 2006, 03:34 AM

Bad wording on my behalf.

What I should have said is: The thermal challenge is similar.

There's no room for the PM's nine fans in the iMac or MBP. They both have rather narrow cases and no space for the PM's air flow channels. They are both used right in front of the user so fan noise is critical (in a server room or under a desk noise is much less of an issue).

Of course they have different temps though. They are both using a 31W TDP Yonah, but the MBP's case volume is much smaller. In addition the MBP's case transports a lot of heat to the user, whereas the iMac's plastic shell doesn't. And finally, even if the iMac had a very hot outer surface (which it doesn't in general), who'd notice? On a MBP that's very different, since the bottom case is right on your lap and your hands touch the top case almost all the time.

I was not trying to say the iMac can only use MBP CPUs due to heat issues, it's just that thermal concerns on the iMac are more similar to the MBP's than to the Power Mac's which is spec'ed for a totally different kind of power dissipation.

Simon · Jun 7, 2006, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Also, the iMac had a G5 in it, when the laptops could only ever dream of such a thing due to the heat they produce.

Due to heat? Rather due to power drain.

Eug Wanker · Jun 7, 2006, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Due to heat? Rather due to power drain.

They're related. A G5 drained too much power and was too hot for the PowerBooks. Apple likes a max usage of around 30+ish Watts. The 2+ GHz G5s in the iMacs were likely way, way above that, probably closer to 45-50.

In other words, an iMac can use a CPU with heat dissipation MUCH higher than a MacBook. No big surprise there anyway, given the iMac's enclosure and fan size.

Big Mac · Jun 7, 2006, 07:54 AM

Most likely Merom, I would say. It was awkward to have the iMac go G5 while the PB was still G4 - I'm pretty sure Apple would prefer to have the MBP to at least have parity with the iMac.

Eug Wanker · Jun 7, 2006, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Most likely Merom, I would say. It was awkward to have the iMac go G5 while the PB was still G4 - I'm pretty sure Apple would prefer to have the MBP to at least have parity with the iMac.

Perhaps, but I've never thought that made any sense.

Eug Wanker · Jun 7, 2006, 12:26 PM

Heh.

Conroe will be used in laptops.

P · Jun 7, 2006, 12:49 PM

Does anyone have any details on what the differences between Conroe and Merom will be? So far, all we see is that Merom will use a lower clockspeed. With Intel naming both "Core Duo", will the differences really be that big?

Eug Wanker · Jun 7, 2006, 02:54 PM

I dunno. I thought I read somewhere that Merom has some additional power saving features, but I can't find verification of that anywhere.

In terms of marketing/cost I think the Core 2 Duo 2.13 GHz Conroe with 2 MB cache makes a lot of sense for the iMac. Intel sells the chip (in 1000 trays) at only $224. It's a clock speed upgrade from the current 2.0 GHz Core Duo, it has better performance clock-for-clock, and it's 64-bit. Furthermore, it leaves a lot of room for the Mac Pro towers, since there will still be 2.4, 2.67, and 2.93 GHz Conroe chips, as well as Woodcrest chips up to 3.2 GHz for the quad.

I'm not sure the 2.4 GHz and 2.67 GHz Conroe chips make as much sense for the iMac. They have 4 MB L2 which helps increase the price quite a bit. (The 4 MB 2.4 costs >40% more than the 2 MB 2.13. The 2.67 costs more than double that of the 2.13.) The 4 MB L2 chips could be reserved for the Mac Pros.

mduell · Jun 7, 2006, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Conroe will be used in laptops.

May as well keep using those cases they developed for the 60W (80W?) P4s they were stuffing in them.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

They're related. A G5 drained too much power and was too hot for the PowerBooks. Apple likes a max usage of around 30+ish Watts. The 2+ GHz G5s in the iMacs were likely way, way above that, probably closer to 45-50.

The G5 iMacs clockrate more-or-less followed IBM's development of their most power-optimized PPC970 chips. I don't think they ever went over 40W.

Originally Posted by P

Does anyone have any details on what the differences between Conroe and Merom will be? So far, all we see is that Merom will use a lower clockspeed. With Intel naming both "Core Duo", will the differences really be that big?

Cache, bus, and clockspeed.
Some additional power saving features may be used on Merom and the accompanying mobile chipsets.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

In terms of marketing/cost I think the Core 2 Duo 2.13 GHz Conroe with 2 MB cache makes a lot of sense for the iMac. Intel sells the chip (in 1000 trays) at only $224. It's a clock speed upgrade from the current 2.0 GHz Core Duo, it has better performance clock-for-clock, and it's 64-bit. Furthermore, it leaves a lot of room for the Mac Pro towers, since there will still be 2.4, 2.67, and 2.93 GHz Conroe chips, as well as Woodcrest chips up to 3.2 GHz for the quad.

After seeing the prices, you may be on to something. The TDP of the low-end Conroes won't be far from Merom, but the price for similarly clocked chips will be.

Eug Wanker · Jun 7, 2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

The G5 iMacs clockrate more-or-less followed IBM's development of their most power-optimized PPC970 chips. I don't think they ever went over 40W.

Where did you get that <40 Watt spec?

When the G5 970 was announced at 1.8 GHz, IBM said the typical power usage was around 50 Watts. Estimates from various sites were saying that max power was probably north of 90 Watts.

When the G5 970FX was announced at 2.0 GHz, IBM said the typical power usage was around 25 Watts. Obviously these aren't the same chips, but given the precedence with the 1.8 GHz 970, I might have guessed the max power of the 2.0 970FX might have been around 45ish Watts, at least in the earliest G5 iMacs. But like I said, I'm just guessing.

A case as large as the iMac 20" (with its huge vent) shouldn't have any problems dissipating that kind of heat, so 45 Watts would make sense. In fact, IMO it wouldn't have that much problem dissipating 60 Watts either, although I don't know how much fan noise would be needed for 60 Watts. Even if 60 Watts is a bit high, it certainly doesn't have to be as low as 35 Watts, aka Merom.

Yeah, yeah, lots of speculation. I know...

Hell, for all we know, Apple will just continue using Yonah.

mduell · 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Where did you get that <40 Watt spec?

When the G5 970 was announced at 1.8 GHz, IBM said the typical power usage was around 50 Watts. Estimates from various sites were saying that max power was probably north of 90 Watts.

When the G5 970FX was announced at 2.0 GHz, IBM said the typical power usage was around 25 Watts. Obviously these aren't the same chips, but given the precedence with the 1.8 GHz 970, I might have guessed the max power of the 2.0 970FX might have been around 45ish Watts, at least in the earliest G5 iMacs. But like I said, I'm just guessing.

A case as large as the iMac 20" (with its huge vent) shouldn't have any problems dissipating that kind of heat, so 45 Watts would make sense. In fact, IMO it wouldn't have that much problem dissipating 60 Watts either, although I don't know how much fan noise would be needed for 60 Watts. Even if 60 Watts is a bit high, it certainly doesn't have to be as low as 35 Watts, aka Merom.

Yeah, yeah, lots of speculation. I know...

Hell, for all we know, Apple will just continue using Yonah.

From a PDF that IBM has since pulled from their website; it discussed power consumption for standard and power optimized PPC970FX parts. The url was http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/1DE505664D202D2987256D9C006B90A5/$file/PPC970FX_DS_DD3.X_V2.1.pdf

edit: Hey look, I posted a summary of that PDF in a previous thread. The PDF said 47W at 2.0Ghz, and I believe that's maximum, since the marketing folks at the time were spewing numbers about half that. A low-end Conroe may very well fit inside a 45W envelope.

Simon · Jun 8, 2006, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Conroe will be used in laptops.

Hehe, somebody needs to try and put a Woodcrest in a notebook enclosure. And then sell four battery packs and some burn dressings with it.

Just as mduell mentioned, this makes about as much (or as little) sense as the desktop P4 notebooks.

Pao|o · Jun 8, 2006, 05:55 AM

I think the next iMac & Mac Mini will be using Conroe when it becomes available. The Macbook Pro has been updated 2 times already. Time for the other ICBMs to do the same.

The question is what will Xserves & Mac Pros use?

harrisjamieh · Jun 8, 2006, 06:32 AM

I still think Merom will be the one that is used in the iMacs, but the MBP, being a pro machine, will be updated before the consumer lines.

Also I expect the mini to go to a full Core Duo line before it goes to a Core2Duo lineup/

addiecool · Jun 8, 2006, 12:41 PM

Desktop processor or laptop processor.... Blah! Blah! Blah!

Does not matter if the performance is good. My Imac Intel 20" with a laptop T2500 2.0 Ghz intel processor beats the Powermac G5 with a dual core G5 desktop processor.

P · Jun 8, 2006, 01:32 PM

Recent iMacs have locked processor speed to screen size. Merom is supposedly topping at 2.33 GHz, and so Conroes at that speed shoudln't have a much higher TDP than the Meroms. If they put a 2.33 GHz Conroe in the 17"er, they could put a higher-clocked model in the roomier 20"er and still make the cooling work.

Autumn · 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Perhaps, but I've never thought that made any sense.

I second that. I think the Macbook Pro is not really that "Pro" of a machine. Better screen resolution and video card are needed for BTO.

I still think that there is nothing wrong for the iMac to have better configuration than the Macbook Pro. Come on, it's not a portable!

Chuckit · Jul 6, 2006, 02:58 AM

What is wrong with the MBP's video card? While I'm not a huge expert on video cards, that seems to be pretty high-end for a laptop from everything I've seen.

Simon · Jul 6, 2006, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What is wrong with the MBP's video card? While I'm not a huge expert on video cards, that seems to be pretty high-end for a laptop from everything I've seen.

I think you're right and it's a pretty high-end notebook GPU. But judging from what I see on this page (I'm not a notebook GPU expert at all) there are superior notebook GPUs Apple could consider.

For example the Mobility Radeon X1800XT or the Geforce Go 7800 GTX

And then of course there's the issue of Apple downclocking the GPU which will make a Mac lose a direct GPU benchmark against a PC with the same Mobility Radeon X1600

Autumn · Jul 10, 2006, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What is wrong with the MBP's video card? While I'm not a huge expert on video cards, that seems to be pretty high-end for a laptop from everything I've seen.

the x1600 is a fine video card for laptop but not great. There are better choices esp. for the 17 inch MBP.

But what I want is to have some choices in video card of built to order for iMac!!

Simon · Jul 12, 2006, 03:16 AM

If this rumor turns out to be true, the next iMac will actually get Conroe!

HAGEhead · Jul 12, 2006, 09:31 AM

If that's true and they stuff a Conroe in there, I hope they're as committed to silencing as they were with the CD iMacs, otherwise I'm just buying a used CD.

Dillon-K · Jul 13, 2006, 03:53 AM

Well they *just released* the Core Duo iMac six months ago! I really don't think that they'll be doing that right away... maybe it'll be something they reveal at MacWorld...

Simon · 08:59 AM

Updating the iMac by Sep means updating an 8 months old Mac. Nothing special about that.

P · Jul 13, 2006, 10:47 AM

Well, if Conroe uses too much energy, they could always gain it back by dropping discrete graphics...

Honestly, Intel's 965 chipset includes GMA 3000, which is supposed to be a huge step up over the GMA 950. Considering the graphics iMacs have used before, you can't discount the possibility.

Tuishimi · Jul 13, 2006, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dillon-K

Well they *just released* the Core Duo iMac six months ago! I really don't think that they'll be doing that right away... maybe it'll be something they reveal at MacWorld...

Well, last summer they released the second generation G5 iMacs only to release the Intel version a few months later. :/

mduell · Jul 13, 2006, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dillon-K

Well they *just released* the Core Duo iMac six months ago! I really don't think that they'll be doing that right away... maybe it'll be something they reveal at MacWorld...

Toto, we're not in IBM/MOT land anymore.

Originally Posted by P

Well, if Conroe uses too much energy, they could always gain it back by dropping discrete graphics...

Honestly, Intel's 965 chipset includes GMA 3000, which is supposed to be a huge step up over the GMA 950. Considering the graphics iMacs have used before, you can't discount the possibility.

965 is an upgrade to 950, but not enough to replace, or even match, X1600.

Dillon-K · Jul 14, 2006, 06:23 AM

Haha... that's a good point, mduell. I'm already inpressed at how well people are saying the GMA 950 does in the MBs... while I don't do very many graphics-intesive tasks/games it would always be nice to have the opportunity, which is something I feel is a big difference between the budget users of the Mac mini and the "regular" users of the iMac.

Eug Wanker · 11:09 AM

I look forward to a 2.4-2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac. I kinda want HDCP support though. It doesn't necessarily have to have a Blu-ray/HD-DVD drive, but I want it to be able to display Blu-ray/HD-DVD material. If this iteration of the iMac doesn't get HDCP support, I'm more than happy to wait for the next. I've got AppleCare on my G5 iMac. So, any idea what a 20" G5 2.0 iMac with 400 GB drive is worth?

In the meantime... PCs tests, but hey:

Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 didn't lose a single benchmark in our comparison; not a single one. In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel's previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. In one day, Intel has made its entire Pentium D lineup of processors obsolete. Intel's Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven't seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6.

Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.

Eug Wanker · Jul 17, 2006, 08:15 PM

Merom may be released early: July 23rd

Simon · Jul 18, 2006, 02:48 AM

Actually they are only advancing the introduction date. Shipping time is unchanged: August. </nitpick>

harrisjamieh · Jul 18, 2006, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I look forward to a 2.4-2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac. I kinda want HDCP support though. It doesn't necessarily have to have a Blu-ray/HD-DVD drive, but I want it to be able to display Blu-ray/HD-DVD material. If this iteration of the iMac doesn't get HDCP support, I'm more than happy to wait for the next. I've got AppleCare on my G5 iMac. So, any idea what a 20" G5 2.0 iMac with 400 GB drive is worth?

In the meantime... PCs tests, but hey:

Would have liked to have seen the Yonah Core Duo on those charts too...

Pierre B. · Jul 18, 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I look forward to a 2.4-2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac.[/i]

Don't hold your breath on that though. It looks like the iMac cannot go beyond Merom. Unless Intel has some surprise (special low-power version).

Autumn · Jul 19, 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

Don't hold your breath on that though. It looks like the iMac cannot go beyond Merom. Unless Intel has some surprise (special low-power version).

My guess is more likely 2.13 and 2.4. iMac does have a much bigger case than the MBPs, so instead of going even thinner, Apple should just put in a cooling system for Conroe.

I think they are able to put a Conroe in the iMac but might not run as quiet as CoreDuo iMacs. A cooling system might help the fan noise.