[yoyoman]

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/...spx?i=2715&p=2
The same XtremeSystems site owner who reported that the Mac mini could be processor upgraded simply by swapping out the socketed Intel processor, now reports that the unreleased Merom 64-bit mobile processor is also similarly compatible:
It is possible to drop in Merom into Mini, one hell of an upgrade path. confirming this is a working combo, just drop the chip in.

Further details are limited, presumably due to non-disclosure agreements for pre-release hardware. Intel's Merom processor is a mobile 64-bit processor due in late 2006.

The Merom is said to offer 20% more performance than the current Core Duo at the same battery life. The Merom will reportedly come with 4MB L2 Cache (up from 2MB on Yonah). This backward compatible capability has been advertised by Intel:
During a separate briefing, Intel's Mooly Eden showed a benchmark pitting a Dell Core Duo system against the same system with a Merom processor (Eden literally swapped out the Core Duo CPU and stuck in a Merom processor, partly to showcase its backwards comptability). The benchmark was a custom Quake 4 timedemo, with the Core Duo system scoring 106.6 fps while the Merom system scored 134 fps: advantage Merom by just over 25%. We don't know any of the specifics of the settings on the systems, other than they were claimed to be identical.
The platform will also include Intel’s NAND flash–based platform accelerator, codenamed Robson, which enables much more rapid boot–up time and power savings.
While the Intel iMac also has a socketed CPU, the MacBook Pro CPU is soldered to the motherboard.


I wonder what ghz its going to be at. Is it true 64 bit or 64 bit extentions?

[hookem2oo7]

my guess is that its an implementation of the EMT64 extensions...I believe the only "true" 64 bit chip from intel is the itanium series

[yoyoman]

Originally Posted by hookem2oo7

my guess is that its an implementation of the EMT64 extensions...I believe the only "true" 64 bit chip from intel is the itanium series

would we need 64 bit for a laptop any way?

All it really allows us to do is have more ram right?

[mduell]

Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest (and the rest of the P8/INGMA family) are 64-bit chips. Itanium is another 64-bit chip, using a different ISA (IA-64).

It has been known for quite a while that Merom/Conroe will work with the existing Napa (945) chipsets; Santa Rosa (965) isn't due out until H1 2007.

With 2 SO-DIMM slots, support for >4GB memory is pointless. But the new Core microarchitecture brings a lot of improvements (wider core, more cache, faster bus, and single-cycle vector ops off the top of my head).

[yoyoman]

true 64 bit like the Itanium and g5?


Does any one know what ghz it will be at. I like the faster fsb and larger cache. 4mbs vs 2. What about L3 cache?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by yoyoman

true 64 bit like the Itanium and g5?

Does any one know what ghz it will be at. I like the faster fsb and larger cache. 4mbs vs 2. What about L3 cache?

I don't know what you mean by "true", but it supports 64-bit variables and addresses just like Itanium and the G5 (and AMD64) do.

The latest rumors say Conroe will launch at 2.66Ghz/4MB L2, 2.4Ghz/4MB L2, 2.13Ghz/2MB L2, and 1.86Ghz/2MB L2 all with a 1.07Ghz FSB. There is no L3 cache. Merom is likely to launch at slightly lower clockrates, with the same amount of cache, and with a slower FSB.

[yoyoman]

hummm. So I may wait for the merom chip before I upgrade my 17 inch notebook right now. That is one year for me to save up.

[hookem2oo7]

by "true" we mean it is not x86 32-bit compatible, but a entirely different 64 bit architecture (G5 and Itanium). the AMD64 and EMT64 processors are just 64-bit extensions of x86. the 64bit extensions are only supported if the software is written for them (i.e. windows xp x64)...without specific software, they are just your everyday 32 bit chip. the "true" 64 bit chips HAVE to have 64bit software written for them to run properly...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hookem2oo7

by "true" we mean it is not x86 32-bit compatible, but a entirely different 64 bit architecture (G5 and Itanium). the AMD64 and EMT64 processors are just 64-bit extensions of x86. the 64bit extensions are only supported if the software is written for them (i.e. windows xp x64)...without specific software, they are just your everyday 32 bit chip. the "true" 64 bit chips HAVE to have 64bit software written for them to run properly...

Both the G5 and Itanium fail your definition of "true" 64-bit. The G5 will happily run 32-bit PPC code, and Itanium includes hardware or software x86 32-bit emulation (depending on revision).

[hookem2oo7]

I dont know much about the PPC 64-bit chips, but the emulation (whether hardware or software) makes the itanium a true 64-bit chip. amd64 and emt64 dont emulate anything...x86 code runs natively

[Big Mac]

Your assertion that true 64 bit chips must emulate 32 bit instruction sets is false. The G5 executes both 32 bit and 64 bit code natively because that capability has always been part of the PowerPC specification - from day one a 64 bit PPC chip was to be backward compatible with the 32 bit instruction set. The distinction you're looking for is that the Intel and AMD chips that have 64 bit capability have that capability grafted on to them (EM64T and AMD64 respectively), and that those implementations of that capability are limited and are hacks to the inherent microarchitecture designs. Intel never intended for there to be a 64 bit version of the x86 ISA, but AMD forced its hand when it was successful in grafting on 64 bit extensions. Intel followed suit not too long thereafter. One could say that the 64 bit x86 processors have hacked-on, limited 64 bit support from a design and programmability standpoint, but they do technically offer (limited) 64 bit addressing and are thus 64 bit chips.