Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Merom over Conroe, what are the advantages?

Merom over Conroe, what are the advantages?
Thread Tools
striker100
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:16 PM
 
I was just wondering what the advantages are of Apple going with the Merom processor instead of Conroe in the iMacs.
     
archer75
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:17 PM
 
Requires less power and produces less heat.
     
normang
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:25 PM
 
They are faster...
     
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:29 PM
 
64 bit vs 32
     
archer75
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by normang
They are faster...
They shouldn't be. Both conroe and Merom are Core2duo cores. They should be the same speed. Or if anything the conroe may be a touch faster.


Originally Posted by macintologist
64 bit vs 32

Conroe's are 64 bit as well.
     
Steve Bosell
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by macintologist
64 bit vs 32
They are both 64 bit.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:37 PM
 
merom is intended for laptops therefore optimised for power and heat

conroe (while power and heat efficient) isn't.

merom = pentium m

conroe = pentium 4/pentium D

conroe chips will probably clock faster than merom ones.

so in imac's case, the merom is more suited to working in a compact case.

also I don't think Conroe is 'drop in' compatible with the existing motherboard on imac.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:02 PM
 
True, the Conroe is not drop-in compatible in the current mobo. I think that was the main reason, personally.
     
striker100  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 02:17 PM
 
It all makes sense, I was under the impression that Conroe was faster than Merom even though they are both considered Core 2 Duo,
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:23 PM
 
Conroe clocks higher and runs on a faster FSB, that's the main performance difference between the two.
     
b11051973
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 04:28 PM
 
Merom is a laptop processor, while the Conroe is for desktop. Wood crest is a workstation/server processor which is why it's in the Mac Pro.

I would assume they stuck with the laptop processor(Merom) since the iMac is pretty slim and the Merom will produce less heat.
     
Meritocracy
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 06:36 PM
 
Less power and heat are the sole advantages. Until the Santa Rosa platform shows up around H1 of 07 the Merom processor upgrades are honestly not terribly significant. Comparisons between the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo (Merom) at roughly the same clock speeds are showing VERY slight performance improvements. Right now, the real performance increase is with the Conroe, however, considering the iMac is essentially a gigantic notebook...
( Last edited by Meritocracy; Sep 6, 2006 at 06:43 PM. )
What exactly is rotten in Denmark?
     
houstonmacbro
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Houston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by striker100
It all makes sense, I was under the impression that Conroe was faster than Merom even though they are both considered Core 2 Duo,
i thought conroe and woodcrest were for desktops and merom was basically for portables.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 11:04 PM
 
Conroe in an iMac was almost an impossibility. We KNEW the Merom was a drop-in from the start. We KNEW that the iMac is a balance of space, heat, and speed, and to do this, Apple uses laptop processors.

The Mac Pros are "workstations" with the Conroe processors. They are massively fast.

Face it. The iMac is really an excellent example of industrial design. NO ONE has been able to copy it successfully and NO ONE is going to dare do a 24" version. Are will they?

Apple must have received a LOT of requests for this kind of machine or they saw the hole between the Mac Pro and the iMac. I think this machine is the best compromise we can ask for at this time. It fits right in the lineup.

Consumers are familiar with the iMac and I think it is a great product for Apple. This 24" model is the flagship of iMacs. A reasonable compromise in performance, form factor, and because of its laptop parts: near silence.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 11:11 PM
 
Conroe in an iMac was almost an impossibility. We KNEW the Merom was a drop-in from the start. We KNEW that the iMac is a balance of space, heat, and speed, and to do this, Apple uses laptop processors.
You mean like with my G5 iMac?
     
zaghahzag
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 11:19 PM
 
duh! it's b/c they are saving that for the cube2!!

LOLZ
     
Dillon-K
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 11:39 PM
 
man that $999 model will be great for my grandma *emails link to Dad.* We've been wanting to get my grandma an iMac so she could have OS X's betterness... plus, it's an all-in-one so it's simple for her and I'm sure she'll want to video chat with that iSight...
Black MacBook 2.0GHz Core Duo, 1GB RAM.
Logitech V270 Bluetooth mouse, Brenthaven Metro (black).
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 03:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
The Mac Pros are "workstations" with the Woodcrest processors.
Fixinated.

It's Conroe Apple hasn't used anywhere (yet).
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
You mean like with my G5 iMac?
You got me there. Perhaps there are realiability reasons to use the laptop processor?

I don't remember any heat complaints with the G5 iMac. Were there any? I know that the G5 iSight iMac looked almost the same internally as the intel version so they had to be comparable heat-wise. I wonder how they managed that? Maybe it was because they used a "slow" G5?

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
You got me there. Perhaps there are realiability reasons to use the laptop processor?

I don't remember any heat complaints with the G5 iMac. Were there any? I know that the G5 iSight iMac looked almost the same internally as the intel version so they had to be comparable heat-wise. I wonder how they managed that? Maybe it was because they used a "slow" G5?
I don't have any problems with my G5 iMac, but at full tilt, the fan does rev up a bit. It's not loud by any means, but it's definitely not silent. I don't own an Intel iMac, but I've read anecdotal evidence that the Intel iMacs may be slightly quieter. (We have an Intel iMac at work, but there's too much ambient noise here to judge silentness.) And from we know, the G5 used in the iMac is undoubted hotter than Merom.

However, Conroe is even hotter... In terms of power dissipation: Conroe > G5 >> Merom

So you're right in that Conroe is more problematic. I'm still convinced it could have been made to work though, but I'm guessing it would have probably taken some re-engineering of the case design, since it is a bit warmer than the G5. It would also have taken a change in the chipset.

OTOH, Merom as you say is simply a drop-in replacement.

The other issue that we shouldn't overlook is marketing. Yes, Apple can say that Merom is advantageous because it makes the iMac very quiet, in a small package. That is true, and in this aspect I do prefer Merom. However, it also has the marketing benefit of being lower spec'd (ie. bus speed) than Conroe (and Xeon) which makes it an easier choice marketing-wise because it keeps the lines separate - Merom doesn't have the same performance as Conroe. In that respect, I would have preferred Conroe in an iMac, but like I said that would been much more work for Apple to implement properly, and I'm thinking it may have meant a somewhat louder machine and a larger case.

P.S. I wonder if it's easy to implement a Conroe design with a slower bus, while still using an the usual Conroe chipset? I suppose Apple could have done that. They did that with the G5 iMac after all. Sorry, I'm not up to speed with the Conroe chipsets, so it might be a stupid question.
( Last edited by Eug; Sep 7, 2006 at 08:52 AM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2006, 02:51 AM
 
Yeah here was a long thread on which CPU to expect in the new iMac.

I think the general consensus was that without thermal reengineering and/or a new case Apple would have to use Merom. The G5 was pushing it and Conroe would have been even worse in terms of TDP.

People have to look at the iMac more as a desktop with notebook components than as a true desktop. In that sense Merom is the obvious candidate.

Edit: I found the other thread.
http://forums.macnn.com/58/imac-emac...2/#post3063339
( Last edited by Simon; Sep 8, 2006 at 03:02 AM. )
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:41 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,