[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think they are able to put a Conroe in the iMac but might not run as quiet as CoreDuo iMacs.

That's the problem. Right now, the Yonah iMacs are near perfect machines from a noise/performance point of view. It will be very interesting to see what finally Apple will do.

Originally Posted by Autumn

A cooling system might help the fan noise.

What do you mean by "cooling system"? The iMacs have already fans.

[Velocity211]

Originally Posted by Simon

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

The mac pro is gonna get a xeon processor? I didn't see that coming.

[Eug Wanker]

I still think that Conroe is a possibility for the iMac, although I also think there is a strong chance it will get Merom... although it's also possible it will get neither until 2007.

Originally Posted by Velocity211

The mac pro is gonna get a xeon processor? I didn't see that coming.

Why not? Xeon allows for quads, and Apple already sells quads.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Velocity211

The mac pro is gonna get a xeon processor? I didn't see that coming.

They have to put Xeons in the Mac Pro. It's supposed to be an SMP capable workstation, not any run-of-the-mill desktop PC (that would be the iMac). At least that's what a $3299 price tag suggests.

[Autumn]

Another rumor from Macrumors.com:


Kentsfield, Cloverton Quad-Core CPUs Arriving Early?

Thursday July 20, 2006 09:05 AM EST
Posted by longofest

Mac Rumors
While Apple hasn't yet released its first Intel-based professional model desktop machine, many users are actively watching Intel's future roadmap for hints as to what may next appear in Apple's second revision Mac Pro and XServe machines. CNet News.com reported yesterday afternoon that Intel's quad-core desktop chip (Kentsfield) and Xeon-class chip (Cloverton) have been bumped up and should arrive before year's end.

Educated speculation would therefore indicate that Apple's second revision Mac Pro workstation will feature 8 cores, and other models will all become "Quad" machines. Most recent rumors have indicated that the Mac Pro will use Apple's Xeon-class chips over "desktop" models such as Core 2 Duo "Conroe" and Kentsfield. With Conroe perhaps landing in a future iMac, further speculation would indicate that iMacs down the pipe will feature the 4-core Kentsfield processor.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Why not? Xeon allows for quads, and Apple already sells quads.

To be more precise, at this point ONLY with Xeon one can build an Intel quad desktop. Apple would do a step back if it had an all-Conroe Mac Pro line since as of today there is the quad G5.

[Simon]

I don't get why people are worried about Xeon vs. Conroe. Xeon is not P4, Xeon is not Netburst. The Xeon 51xx Apple will use is everything Conroe is and then some more (faster bus, SMP). If you want Conroe, there's nothing you won't get from Xeon.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

That's the problem. Right now, the Yonah iMacs are near perfect machines from a noise/performance point of view. It will be very interesting to see what finally Apple will do.


What do you mean by "cooling system"? The iMacs have already fans.

I thought about the cooling system used in PowerMac G5. But you know what? iMac won't need one!!!

Come think of it, if Apple could fit a G5 in iMac, they'll be just fine for Conroe.

On top of that, someone pointed out that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.

In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.

I hope the new 17 inch iMac will feature Conroe 2.16Ghz and 20 inch one with 2.4 Ghz. Really hoping they use either ATI X1900 video card 256MB PCI express x16 or Geforce Go 7900 GTX 256MB with 512 MB as an opition for BTO.

[Eug]

an

Originally Posted by Simon

I don't get why people are worried about Xeon vs. Conroe. Xeon is not P4, Xeon is not Netburst. The Xeon 51xx Apple will use is everything Conroe is and then some more (faster bus, SMP). If you want Conroe, there's nothing you won't get from Xeon.

I think it has to do with the fact that Intel didn't change the name. Perhaps people don't realize that it utilizes the new arch.

Originally Posted by Autumn

I thought about the cooling system used in PowerMac G5. But you know what? iMac won't need one!!!

Come think of it, if Apple could fit a G5 in iMac, they'll be just fine for Conroe.

On top of that, someone pointed out that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.

In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.

I hope the new 17 inch iMac will feature Conroe 2.16Ghz and 20 inch one with 2.4 Ghz. Really hoping they use either ATI X1900 video card 256MB PCI express x16 or Geforce Go 7900 GTX 256MB with 512 MB as an opition for BTO.

I posted this before but...

My wild guesstimate is that the chips in the G5 iMacs max out around 50ish Watts. TDP for Conroe pushes 60 Watts. Thus I think Conroe would fit, although it might me a little bit more fan noise at full tilt. OTOH, Conroe probably has better power saving features, so in usual usage it's probably comparable or less than the G5.

ie. I still predict Conroe for the iMac in 2007. And when it gets something like a 2.4, with a next gen optical drive hopefully with HDCP support, then I'll be buying.

In truth, my current 2.0 GHz G5 iMac is fine for most stuff, but it's slow at Aperture and video encoding. It's usable for these though, since I do neither for a living. The other thing also is that I use Photoshop from time to time. It's kinda slow on the Intel Macs, cuz it's running under Rosetta. This will change in 2007, not 2006, so I'm no particular rush to switch from PowerPC on my main desktop.

Here's hoping for a 23" iMac too.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Come think of it, if Apple could fit a G5 in iMac, they'll be just fine for Conroe.

AFAIK the PPC970FX used in the iMac had a TDP <45W. Unfortunately IBM moved the docs and I can't find them anymore.

Originally Posted by Autumn

In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.

There is no 2.16Ghz Conroe part.
How do you propose that Apple should underclock Core 2 Duo? The multiplier is fixed, so you're left with dorking with the FSB. Why not just put the 1.86Ghz part in?

Originally Posted by Autumn

I hope the new 17 inch iMac will feature Conroe 2.16Ghz and 20 inch one with 2.4 Ghz. Really hoping they use either ATI X1900 video card 256MB PCI express x16 or Geforce Go 7900 GTX 256MB with 512 MB as an opition for BTO.

That's just wild dreaming. Look at the history of GPUs in the iMacs; Apple never has put anything that nice (during its generation) in.

Originally Posted by Eug

Here's hoping for a 23" iMac too.

I think 24" is more likely; lower price due to higher volume (everyone and their mother has a 24" HD LCD).

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by mduell

AFAIK the PPC970FX used in the iMac had a TDP <45W. Unfortunately IBM moved the docs and I can't find them anymore.

There is no 2.16Ghz Conroe part.
How do you propose that Apple should underclock Core 2 Duo? The multiplier is fixed, so you're left with dorking with the FSB. Why not just put the 1.86Ghz part in?

That's just wild dreaming. Look at the history of GPUs in the iMacs; Apple never has put anything that nice (during its generation) in.

I think 24" is more likely; lower price due to higher volume (everyone and their mother has a 24" HD LCD).

My bad, there is 2.13Ghz Conroe. That's what I meant. I'm not an expert on CPU so I won't be able to explain how exactly to underclock it...perhaps someone could? Or is it not possible?

All I'm saying is if Apple could fit in the Conroes, there is no reason why they shouldn't. Even if it means the fan on iMac would run more often. Last time I checked, nobody complanied about the fan noice in iMac G5.

GPU is a dream but hey, there is always a first for everything. AT least for Built to order.

I'll need an iMac early next year so I'll take whatever best Apple could offer at the time.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell

I think 24" is more likely; lower price due to higher volume (everyone and their mother has a 24" HD LCD).

I think a 23" iMac and a 24" iMac are both unlikely any time soon, even though I want one.

Last time I checked, nobody complanied about the fan noice in iMac G5.

Actually, I did. I came from an almost silent PC and an almost silent Cube. (The Cube had a CPU upgrade so I put an undervolted fan in it.)

The PC and Cube were inaudible unless I stuck my ear up to the machines. The iMac G5 is relatively quiet, but I can still hear it from across the room, even if it only had been used for surfing and nothing else. (I'm told the Yonah iMacs are often quieter than the G5 iMacs.)

That's why I WISH Apple would use Merom, despite the slower bus and clock speed. A 20" iMac with Merom would be near silent as well with light usage. However, I'm thinking they'd use Conroe because they can, and because it's cheaper and faster. And while I do prefer a quieter machine, I can't say that I'd complain about the performance boost that Conroe would offer. I also think most people would prefer the speed, over the mild noise, esp. if it's less money.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Autumn

My bad, there is 2.13Ghz Conroe. That's what I meant. I'm not an expert on CPU so I won't be able to explain how exactly to underclock it...perhaps someone could? Or is it not possible?

The only way to underclock (the vast majority of) Intel chips is to decrease the FSB; X6800 is the exception, but Apple isn't paying $999 for an iMac CPU. Once you underclock, now your FSB and RAM are running at different speeds; not impossible, but not advantageous.
There will be a low-end Conroe part (E4 series instead of E6) with a possibly lower TDP, but I don't think Apple will want to go there because it would limit future upgrades to the pace of Intel's low-end chips.

[Simon]

The way I see it there's either
• hot and loud Conroe iMac (65W TDP)
• silent and cool Merom iMac (35W TDP)

The former is going to get Apple a lot of bad press will certainly be a challenge to implement. The latter is going to be more expensive (at 2.13/2.16 GHz the price difference is +$199 (+89%) for Merom, at 2.33/2.4 GHz it's +$321 (+102%) for Merom).

I'm not quite sure. Looking at the price I'd say Apple will try to go for Conroe no matter what. OTOH judging by the amount of flak they're taking now for hot MBs and noisy desktop Macs a while ago, I think they'd just love to go with Merom and be done with it.

Finally, if they indeed go for Merom, there might not be a Conroe Mac at all! (assuming it makes no sense to design two Mac Pro boards) Hmm, time for a revival of something like the Power Mac 7600. 2 HDD bays, one optical, 2 or 3 PCIe, desktop form factor. Conroe and a cheap PCIe GPU with a BTO option for a really good GPU. Starting at $1499. [Yes, thanks, I know it won't happen.]

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by Simon

The latter is going to be more expensive (at 2.13/2.16 GHz the price difference is +$199 (+89%) for Merom, at 2.33/2.4 GHz it's +$321 (+102%) for Merom).

I think Apple will try to maintain or improve their current margins. Historically, I've noticed that Apple seems to favor profit margin and so I imagine they're willing to take the flak related to things like fan noise or overheating problems.

I vote Conroe. (mainly because I want the line to be updated at WWDC so I can go ahead and buy one and get all the new goodies they'll be featuring)

I'd also like to mention that these TDP figures seem to be TDP(typ) not TDP(max.) I'd take them all with a grain of salt.

[P]

Last time I checked, there wasn't a 1.5 GHz Core Solo available either - or at least there wasn't when Apple launched the Mac mini. If Apple asks for it, I'm sure Intel can deliver a slower CPU.

About underclocking: In the olden days of the original Pentium, the clockspeed was set as the speed of the front side bus (or FSB) times a factor that was set by jumpers on the motherboard. PPCs work the same way even today. Every CPU was then rated at a maximum clockspeed that it would take. Some people bought CPUs rated at one rating, relabelled them and resold them at a higher rating, meaning that the CPUs were unreliable. Because of the PR debacle this caused Intel, future Pentiums are now multiplier-locked, so the actual clockspeed is whatever the label says, no matter what the jumpers say. This also means that you can only sell CPUs at the speed Intel wants you too.

Heat generated by a CPU scales more or less linearly with clockspeed. If the higher end 2.66 GHz Conroes have a 65 W TDP, a 2.13 GHz would need 53 W. I'm sure that there is a Conroe that Apple can squeeze into the iMac - at least the 20"er.

Found some early power consumption figures here. Those are for complete machines, of course, but they might still be interesting.

[Autumn]

Merom/Core 2 Duo (Mobile) Now Shipping?

Friday July 21, 2006 02:50 PM EST
Posted by longofest

Mac Rumors
Intel is shipping Core 2 Duo Mobile chips (Merom) to manufacturers, according to recent Intel financial report. A recent AppleInsider story had indicated that Intel may have plans to move up Merom's formal launch to next Monday, July 23rd, to coincide with the Core 2 Duo Desktop variant ("Conroe") launch. Despite the move, availablility at the time was still not expected until August.

Merom is expected to replace Core Duo "Yonah" CPUs found in the MacBook Pro. Apple could use the 2.0, 2.16, or the 2.33 GHz variants of Merom in its MacBook Pro line, each of which sport 4 MB of L2 Cache (up from 2 MB in current MacBook Pros) and have a 667 MHz frontside bus.

[Dillon-K]

While this may be a bit off-topic, since we're talking about the Intel iMacs... well didn't it use to be that with the PPC CPUs that each new number after "G" (aka G3, G4, G5) to keep track of what designs of the system they were...? How do you guys think they are going to name the new Intel machines' new designs? As of now, they're known as the "Intel <model name>."

[Eug]

iMac Core Duo (Yonah)

iMac Core 2 Duo (Conroe)

P.S. The impact of memory speed. Here's hoping for DDR2-800 in the next iMacs.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug

iMac Core Duo (Yonah)

iMac Core 2 Duo (Conroe)

P.S. The impact of memory speed. Here's hoping for DDR2-800 in the next iMacs.

So, you do believe that the next iMac will sport a Conroe.

Based on price and performance figures, of course it does not make sense to put a Merom in the iMac. But as I said earlier, there is the form factor that imposes serious heat and noise management restrictions. And there is something else, that we know nothing about: the details of the Apple-Intel deal.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

So, you do believe that the next iMac will sport a Conroe.

I do, but not the Extreme.

Based on price and performance figures, of course it does not make sense to put a Merom in the iMac. But as I said earlier, there is the form factor that imposes serious heat and noise management restrictions. And there is something else, that we know nothing about: the details of the Apple-Intel deal.

I'm not actually all that concerned about the heat and noise restrictions.

[Pao|o]

My money's on Conroe.

Conroe will be cheaper on a performance per performance basis vs Merom
I'm guessing the Mac Mini will also go Conroe.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug

I'm not actually all that concerned about the heat and noise restrictions.

You perhaps not, but others yes. This is not a machine you can hide under your desk, it stays there in front of you and continuous noise can be a problem. Really. Not all out there are young as you. There are people that will have even a headache from this.

Now I am not saying that Apple cares and will use a Merom in the next iMac. Apple wants sales. But the iMac is in a very delicate position because of its design.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

You perhaps not, but others yes. This is not a machine you can hide under your desk, it stays there in front of you and continuous noise can be a problem. Really. Not all out there are young as you. There are people that will have even a headache from this.

Now I am not saying that Apple cares and will use a Merom in the next iMac. Apple wants sales. But the iMac is in a very delicate position because of its design.

65 Watts isn't really all that hot, and Conroe apparently has excellent power saving features, so that at usual usage speeds it should be quite quiet. It'd only get louder (and even then only moderately so) at full tilt. I'd actually prefer Merom myself, but in truth I don't think Conroe in an iMac is going to be big problem.

P.S. I went from a near-silent home-built PC to a near silent Cube to a G5 iMac. Also, my HP desktop has a P4, and it's near-silent even with my ear right near it. The TDP of Conroe just doesn't worry me that much.

[Steve Bosell]

Another thread had a link to an intel page that had a 2.13 Merom at 31 watts, I will see if I can find it...

EDIT:
oops it was for the T2600
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SL8VN

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

65 Watts isn't really all that hot,

Well, whatever "isn't really all that hot" means in your book, in pure numbers it's very simple. 65 W TDP means it's an 86% increase over Merom.

So actually, it's pretty close to twice as much. Apple may be able to pull it off, but the thermal dissipation of Merom and Conroe are not at all comparable.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Well, whatever "isn't really all that hot" means in your book, in pure numbers it's very simple. 65 W TDP means it's an 86% increase over Merom.

So actually, it's pretty close to twice as much. Apple may be able to pull it off, but the thermal dissipation of Merom and Conroe are not at all comparable.

That doesn't matter, since Merom is not the baseline for the iMac since it has never been in the iMac. What should be used as the baseline is the G5, which was likely a lot hotter than Merom (and with worse power saving features too).

[Simon]

Actually it matters a lot. Those are the two CPUs Apple will chose from. One is comparable to the current offering which is quiet. The other has a higher TDP than any CPU ever put into the iMac. Conroe's TDP is actually roughly 40% higher than the hottest CPU (just recently IIRC mduell pulled up a link showing ~45W TDP for the 970FX used in the last PPC iMac) ever put into an iMac. And as we all recall that iMac got a load of bad reviews about fans revving up under load, humming, noise, heat, etc.

The thing going for Conroe in the iMac is its substantially lower cost. From a purely thermal point of view, it would have to be Merom.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

Actually it matters a lot. Those are the two CPUs Apple will chose from. One is comparable to the current offering which is quiet. The other has a higher TDP than any CPU ever put into the iMac. Conroe's TDP is actually roughly 40% higher than the hottest CPU ever put into an iMac.

40%? Where did you get that number?

Furthermore, don't underestimate the power of... well... power saving features.

My TiBook G4 7455 1 GHz had a max power of 30 Watts, and it was loud as all hell even if not under heavy load. My MacBook Core Duo 2.0 (which has a smaller enclosure) has a TDP of 31 Watts, and it's usually very quiet.

[Simon]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...39#post3056339

65 / 45 ~= 1.444

And just for the record, I'd prefer Conroe in there because I want the iMac to be a true desktop and not just a non-portable notebook. But IMHO putting Conroe in there requires some serious thermal engineering on Apple's behalf.

[Eug Wanker]

mduell never came up with a source for that 45 Watt spec.

I had always thought that the G5 max was higher than that, and given the noise level of my iMac G5 2.0, it could easily handle an even higher max power. That's even more true if the CPU was low power at idle and relatively low usage.

Remember, the G5 970FX, while better than G5 970, still doesn't compare to Core 2 Duo in terms of power saving features.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

mduell never came up with a source for that 45 Watt spec.

He also told you you why. Do you have reason to think he's lying?

I don't. Actually I found a couple of links about the TDP of the 970FX.
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2436 (55-59W @ 2.5GHz fore the FX, for 2GHz the 970 had 66 W)
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/ppc970.ars/1 (42W @ 1.8 GHz for the 970)
http://www.ppcnux.de/modules.php?nam...ticle&sid=5660 (48W at 2.2GHz for the FX)

The 970 was certainly hotter than the FX, but these numbers point towards what mduell remebered. I think he was pretty much on the money.

Conroe's TDP is certainly not lower than the 970FX's.

[Chinasaur]

It sounds like you all are coming to the consensus that "if" Apple can pull off a heat dissipation coup, then the iMac would get a Conroe? Otherwise, for cool/silent performance, it's a Merom? And this seems to be the main consideration. Performance doesn't seem to be an issue as both chips will outperform, by a goodly margin, a 2Ghz CoreDuo?

I know I'm happier with my 2Ghz CoreDuo iMac re: noise than I was with my 2Ghz G5 iMac which was noisy. i think many posters hit it head on. The iMac sits in front of you all day and Apple did get a lot of bad press over the 2Ghz iMac noise level.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon

He also told you you why. Do you have reason to think he's lying?

Lying? No. Misremembering? Quite possibly.

Actually I found a couple of links about the TDP of the 970FX.
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2436 (55-59W @ 2.5GHz fore the FX, for 2GHz the 970 had 66 W)
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/ppc970.ars/1 (42W @ 1.8 GHz for the 970)
http://www.ppcnux.de/modules.php?nam...ticle&sid=5660 (48W at 2.2GHz for the FX)

The 970 was certainly hotter than the FX, but these numbers point towards what mduell remebered. I think he was pretty much on the money.

Conroe's TDP is certainly not lower than the 970FX's.

IBM does not publish TDP values. The numbers you have listed include "typical" and "max" power specs. Intel's TDP is closer to IBM's "max" value. I find it rather telling that the 2.2 GHz 970FX's max power is 60 Watts in the last link you posted. The last G5 iMac had a 2.1 GHz G5 970FX.

EDIT:

Here is the document:

G5 2.0: 50 Watts max, 44 Watts with tester code
G5 2.2: 60 Watts max, 52 Watts with tester code

Extrapolated G5 2.1: ~55 Watts max, 48 Watts with tester code

Thus, it would seem that the "TDP" of the CPU in the last G5 iMac is probably somewhere around 50ish Watts.

[mduell]

Eug: Thanks for finding the PDF again. It has changed a bit since I last saw it; the previous revision didn't have the "test code" power figures.
I thought the iMac CPU temps were closer to 85C than 105C, so I've always looked at those figures (46W @ 2Ghz).

[Simon]

Nice find!

Basically it puts us back where we first were. If Apple wants to put Conroe in the iMac they will either haver to do some serious thermal re-engineering of the iMac case or they will be producing a louder and/or hotter iMac than the G5 - quite a step back from the current Yonah iMac which is near silent and cool. At a TDP of 50ish, Conroe is still 30% above the hottest G5 Apple ever put in there. It's surely not impossible, but for Apple to consider doing it, it has to be cheaper than paying Merom's premium.

[Eug Wanker]

What I was suggesting earlier is that there are actually two aspects to noise.

1) Noise at maximum usage. This will be higher with Conroe than with the G5 iMac, but it's likely that the iMac can handle it. Even at maximum CPU utilization, my G5 iMac isn't that loud. For Conroe, it would take some tweaking in the iMac, but it wouldn't be a big deal (hopefully). Even if it meant making the Intel iMac thicker, I don't think many end users would care.

2) Noise at everyday usage. This would probably be in the same ballpark with Conroe as with the G5 iMac. Conroe has superior power saving features, and it is roughly twice as fast as the fastest G5 iMac. That means for stuff like surfing and Word, Conroe has to work a lot less hard than the G5 970FX.

I know my TiBook G4 1 GHz and MacBook Core 2.0 aren't a direct comparison, but nonetheless I still find it interesting that the MacBook is considerably quieter, despite having a smaller enclosure and having a CPU TDP that's higher than the TiBook's CPU max power rating.

I predict something like a 2.4 GHz 4 MB L2 Core 2 Duo Conroe in the next iMac, and that it may be announced around WWDC alongside the new quad Xeon Mac Pros.

[Simon]

Intel has finally officially announced Conroe, Conroe Extreme and Merom. Started a thread about it here.

[Eug Wanker]

Core 2 Duo E6300 is already in stock and shipping.

PCs with higher speed Core 2 Duo are expected to be available in volume starting the week of August 7th.
The SteveNote is also August 7th.

I wonder what new logo Apple will create. Intel's logos continue to suck.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I predict something like a 2.4 GHz 4 MB L2 Core 2 Duo Conroe in the next iMac, and that it may be announced around WWDC alongside the new quad Xeon Mac Pros.

I think we'll see 2.13/2MB and 2.4/4MB iMacs in August.

The X6800 (2.93Ghz) part is also available immediately.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell

I think we'll see 2.13/2MB and 2.4/4MB iMacs in August.

Agreed. The E6700 is a steep step up from the E6600 ($214 or +68%). I'd expect the E6600 in the 20" iMac and therefore the E6400 in the 17".

Of course Apple could release an iMac SE with the X6800 and a 23" screen.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon

Of course Apple could release an iMac SE with the X6800 and a 23" screen.

I coined that the "iMac HD" in another thread.

[Eug Wanker]

Oh yeah?!?!! I've been saying since 2 years ago that'd I'd buy a 23" iMac.

(I'm serious. I want a 23-incher. However, with DVI now on the 20", I suppose I could just get a second 20" monitor along with a 20" iNtelMac.)

[Autumn]

a 23 inch like this?

[Steve Bosell]

I have the feeling that since you can overclock the 2.13 Conroe to 2.88 it will be just fine in the iMac, and run cooler and quieter than the G5, just a hunch.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=2802&p=4

[Autumn]

Benchmark of Core 2 Duo t7600:


http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/02/fi...uo_benchmarks/

[Autumn]

WWDC is on right now. Mac Pros go all woodcrest processors!!

Perhaps Conroe in iMac?

[Simon]

Yeah, as some people anticipated Apple's pro Macs have gone all-Woodcrest. That does indeed leave quite some room for Conroe in the iMac.

Or a new desktop Mac...

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Eug

Lying? No. Misremembering? Quite possibly.


IBM does not publish TDP values. The numbers you have listed include "typical" and "max" power specs. Intel's TDP is closer to IBM's "max" value. I find it rather telling that the 2.2 GHz 970FX's max power is 60 Watts in the last link you posted. The last G5 iMac had a 2.1 GHz G5 970FX.

EDIT:

Here is the document:

G5 2.0: 50 Watts max, 44 Watts with tester code
G5 2.2: 60 Watts max, 52 Watts with tester code

Extrapolated G5 2.1: ~55 Watts max, 48 Watts with tester code

Thus, it would seem that the "TDP" of the CPU in the last G5 iMac is probably somewhere around 50ish Watts.

Well, according to this report, Core 2 Duo E6600's(2.4 GHz) power comsumption is only 52 Watts when the chip was loaded to full extent!

Power Consumption

It is no secret for anyone that Intel engineers tried to design not only fast CPUs but also highly economical CPUs when they were working on the new Core microarchitecture. Therefore, they started active promotion of the “performance-per-watt’ concept long before the processor launch and they expect it to turn into the major criterion for processor consumer qualities evaluation very soon. That is why it is extremely interesting to look into the practical power consumption of the new processors and compare it to that of the previous-generation CPUs based on older microarchitecture.

As always, we used a special S&M utility to measure the maximum power consumption (you can download this utility here). We measured the current that goes through the CPU power circuitry. So, the numbers given below do not take into account the efficiency of the CPU voltage regulator laid out on the mainboard.

First of all, we measured the processors power consumption in idle mode. Cool’n’Quiet and Intel Enhanced SpeedStep power saving technologies were disabled in this test.



The results are very diverse, as you can see, which is probably caused by too different processor models participating. However, generally speaking, Core 2 Duo processors can really boast the most economical performance in idle mode.

Now let’s take a look at much more interesting results obtained when our CPUs were loaded to the full extent.



Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors impressed us with their low level of power consumption. These processors are truly ahead of their competitors from the power consumption standpoint. The top Core 2 Extreme X6800 with the clock speed of 2.93GHz consumes even less power than Pentium D 915 and Athlon 64 X2 3800+. And if we compare the power consumption of this CPU with that of the same type processors such as Athlon 64 FX-62 or Pentium Extreme Edition 965, then the difference will be almost twofold.

In other words, Intel processors on Core microarchitecture are not only unprecedentedly fast but also impressively economical. So far they have no real competitors here. However, we have to stress that we haven’t yet finished testing the Energy Efficient AMD processors that are about to start selling fairly soon. Hopefully, they will get close to Core 2 Duo solutions from the power consumption standpoint.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...ootout_11.html

[Autumn]

Right now in Apple's lineup, there is a HUGE gap between iMac and Mac Pro. I wouldn't be surprised if they annouce something like iMac Pro. Basically an iMac with more BTO options.

I don't think they'll do a headless mini Mac Pro. That'll really kill the iMac sales.

So Apple's lineup in the future:

MacBook
MacBook Pro
Mac mini
Mac mini Pro (???)
iMac
iMac Pro (???)
Mac Pro