Should have wrote "competitive," not outperfomed
on
Mobile Processor Showdown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Dammit. I shouldn't have pushed the "Submit" button so soon.
Since TFA showed a 2.0GHz Pentium M outperforming a 2.4GHz Turion in most of the important benchmarks, I think the 1.66GHz Core Solo (with its architectural improvements over the Pentium M) might outperform a 1.8GHz Turion by even more.
A closer look at all of TFA's benchmarks show the Pentium M and Turion being pretty evenly matched, overall. However, that doesn't say anything about which current low-power single core CPU (Turion MT or Core Solo) would perform better.
Sorry guys, I left out the AMD CPU in question (to compare to the Solo): mTurion MT-34 (1.8GHz 25W TDP)
I think it's also important to note that Core Solo (and Duo) has some architectural improvements over the Pentium M such as 667MHz FSB (up from 533MHz), DDR2-667, enhanced floating point performance, and enhanced SIMD.
Since TFA showed a 2.0GHz Pentium M outperforming a 2.4GHz Turion in most of the important benchmarks, I think the 1.66GHz Core Solo (with its architectural improvements over the Pentium M) might outperform a 1.8GHz Turion by even more.
I think TFA is pretty weak, though. They emphasize the importance of performance per watt, but they don't include the widely available Turion MT. They also used freakin' desktop chipsets with these mobile processors. Doesn't this make the "system power consumption" numbers useless for most readers? I thought the mobile chipsets were supposed to have important power-saving technologies in their FSB, memory contollers, wirless modules, etc.
I don't know - that sort of demonstration is completely useless, since there's no way to verify if the demo CPUs are ready for mass production, cool enough for prolonged use, or even whether or not they're faster than dual-core CPUs.
I wonder whether the quad-core Intel chips will be as bandwidth-starved as the dual-core chips? Currently, the comparison between a dual-core Pentium and a dual-core Opteron is farcical, especially for memory-limited apps.
The quad-core chip that Intel demoed in TFA, code name Cloverton, is derived from the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest architecture (which is derived from Yonah/Core Duo). It is not derived from the current bandwidth-starved Xeon core (Netburst/Pentium 4).
I agree that the comparison between dual-core Pentium D/Xeon and dual-core Athlon 64/Opteron is a farce. However, Yonah (even with its 667MHz bus and non-integrated memory controller) did quite well against Athlon 64.
Of course, that doesn't mean bandwidth won't be a problem for Cloverton when they move to 4 cores. I believe Cloverton will still have a FSB and seperate memory controller while Opteron will have next-gen HyperTransport and integrated memory controller(s).
AMD made this very same announcement in June/2005, indicating quad-core CPUs would be available 'sometime in 2007'.
But have they demonstrated working quad-core CPUs the way Intel did in TFA? I think an "announcement" is more impressive if they can demonstrate at least a working prototype. From TFA:
To show the product is well on its way, Intel CTO Justin Rattner demonstrated a working server computer with a pair of the new microprocessors, code-named Clovertown.
BTW, Cloverton is based on the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest architecture, not on the current Netburst/Pentium 4 architecture.
...I plan to squeeze every last drop of life out of XP Pro. That is, until M$ does evil things to force people to upgrade, like releasing Vista-specific software and dropping patches for XP altogether.
Microsoft will continue to provide security updates (part of "extended support") for Windows XP Pro for at least 7 years after Vista's release. So if Vista is released late this year, XP Pro will be under extended support until late 2013. (Note that XP Home doesn't get "extended support" and "mainstream support" ends 2 years after Vista's release.)
Since so many users (especially businesses) will continue to use XP Pro while it's still under "extended support," I'm sure third-party software will continue to be written for XP if many of the software company's customers are still using XP. Only Microsoft has an interest in shutting out a large number of existing XP users (so users will upgrade to Vista).
An older version of Intel's notebook guidelines for Vista (before the current 945GM chipset was released) said that GMA 900 would run Vista without the new Aero interface.
The key difference is support for Windows Vista Display Driver model (WDDM) drivers, which is required for Aero. GMA 950 has it now, GMA 900 doesn't. I don't know if WDDM support will be added to GMA 900 before Vista's release, but I doubt it.
Note that GMA 900 did a fine job running OS X's Aqua interface in Apple's Developer Transition Kits. Therefore, I think GMA 900 should run Aero if Intel or MS writes the drivers for it.
Second I would like to know exactly what Halo brought to the gaming market that "redefined first-person combat and multiplayer action..." Other than awesome marketing.
First nit, that quote is referring to XBox-only Halo 2, not Halo. Second nit, the rest of that quote says "for millions of gamers worldwide," not "the gaming market."
One might argue that Halo 2 did redefine FPSs and multiplayer for millions of console owners who do not own a heavy-duty gaming PC. Even today, I would guess that XBox owners outnumber PC gamers with a GPU better than the XBox's GeForce 3. I would also guess that XBox Live users outnumber online PC gamers by a heck of a lot.
On the other hand, why the heck am I defending the hype from an MS press shill?
A dedicated graphics card with DirectX® 9.0 support
That is only a requirement if you want to run the Aero user interface (it must also support Windows Display Driver Model). I can't believe I haven't seen any "Score:3+" comments mentioning Vista's "Classic" UI mode, which doesn't require a powerful GPU. In fact, it looks a lot like Windows XP with its "Luna" interface deactivated. According to that Wikipedia article (don't use as a final source), Vista's "classic mode" only has the same graphics card requirements as Windows 2000.
Here's what I think is a better Microsoft page describing (and providing links to) Vista's likely requirements:
Here's the non-specific requirements from that page:
CPU -- PC systems should have a modern CPU.
RAM -- PC systems should have 512MB of memory or more.
GPU -- PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM).
It then gets a little more specific about the requirements for the optional Aero user interface:
Windows Vista offers significant improvements to the graphics user experience. To take advantage of these advances in the graphics user experience, graphics processor will need to support WDDM. Graphics processors capable of supporting WDDM:
Are designed to ensure that graphics user experience scales up with hardware capabilities.
Offer improved graphic stability and performance.
May be able to support additional desktop productivity features.
Finally, it describes the "classic mode" that Vista will fall back on if the graphics aren't powerful enough for the Aero UI:
Systems that meet and/or exceed the above requirements should be able to provide a good experience while running Windows Vista. PC systems that do not meet the above hardware requirements for CPU, RAM and GPU may support running Windows Vista. However, such systems may not offer all the features and benefits of Windows Vista. For example, PC systems with GPUs that do not support WDDM will only be able to provide a Windows XP-comparable desktop graphics experience, with regards to features, stability, and performance.
So to answer the freakin' article's question: Yes, if your Core Duo or Solo notebook had integrated Intel graphics, it will work with Vista because GMA 950 supports WDDM. Heck, it will likely work with the new Aero UI. But since the reader specifically stated he "doesn't care about semitransparent windows and cool animations," even an old Pentium M or Celeron M notebook with the 915GM chipset (GMA 900 graphics) will work with Vista in "classic mode." Here's a link to an Intel page on mobile minimum recommendations for Vista:
After the launch of Windows Vista, laptop PCs with Mobile Intel® 915GM Express Chipset will be able to run Windows Vista providing a Windows* XP-comparable graphics experience.
Are there still security updates for Windows 2000?
In the end (when you don't do games) this is what is limitating the usefulness of a PC: how long you'll have security updates..
Yes, until June 30, 2010. For "business and developer products" (which includes Windows 2000), Microsoft provides at least 5 years of "mainstream" support and at least 10 years of "extended support" (which includes security updates). Therefore, I think Windows 2000 is still worth considering if you have older hardware (and if you can find Win2K). Here's a link explaining their current policy:
Getting back to the "Buy or Wait" topic, note that buyers of Windows XP Home computers will see their "mainstream" support end 2 years after Windows Vista is released. WinXP Home does not get "extended" support like WinXP Pro does. For home computer buyers who don't want to deal with upgrading their OS in 2 years, it might be worth waiting for Vista (or getting XP Pro).
One interesting (to me) bit of info from the CNET News article:
The 45-nanometer process could become particularly interesting because many chip designers believe it will be one of the more difficult transitions in years. The power consumption and performance requirements of these chips will be extremely high and chipmakers are being forced to add exotic materials and new structures to their transistors to ensure the chips function properly...
"It does get a little more challenging every time, but we come up with new technology and tricks to keep things going," said Bohr.
If a company botches the process, it could lead to product delays or recalls. Some chipmakers faced these problems during the transition to 130-nanometer chips when they swapped aluminum for copper for making interconnects--the tiny wires inside chips.
Although Intel might have a "considerable lead over our competitors in the 45-nanometer generation," it doesn't appear that this transition is expected to go as smoothly as their transtion to 65nm (which seems very smooth). Remember Intel's and IBM's difficult transitions to 90nm.
AfterDawn's guides have some nice information on how to setup some popular BitTorrent clients (buttons, preferences, settings, etc). Here's direct links to the BT client guides:
you can copy and backup the files as you like; you own the files...
And this is different from MSN Music - how? The point of this reply is that usage rules for PlaysForSure files are set by the music store and the record companies, not the DRM format. MSN Music's usage rules are similar to iTMS, but is limited to Windows computers. I think they both suck, but I can understand other people finding the terms reasonable.
PlaysForSure -- doesn't play AT ALL on the most popular music player on the market.
Now, that sounds Orwellian to me.
Apple can acquire a license) just like everybody else, but they don't. Apparently, nobody else is allowed to acquire a FairPlay license. I guess Apple is, and will always be, the only company that makes good portable music players.
I found it most disapointing that Apple decided to go from the G5 64-bit chip to a Core Duo which is a double die 32-bit chip.
I think everybody was surprised when the G5 iMac switched to a 32-bit chip. Who predicted it? All predictions I saw only mentioned the G4 Macs (mini, iBook, PowerBook) as possible candidates for 32-bit Yonah.
Seems bass ackwards to me.
After the initial shock, it actually seems reasonable to me. Despite its 32-bitness, Core Duo is very fast, cool (designed for notebooks), and dual-core. Intel's switch to 65nm seems to be going much smoother than their (and IBM's) switch to 90nm. Is IBM producing a fast dual-core G5 that's cool enough for the iMac's form factor and cheap enough for the iMac's price point? Remember, Apple touted "performance per watt" when explaining the switch to Intel.
It seems that that would only hurt performance in "pro" lever apps. But hey I guess we'llhave to wait and see what the towers have in them before passing judgement.
The towers will have Conroe or Woodcrest, both of which are 64-bit CPUs and are due in July at the earliest. The iMac will also probably move to Conroe later this year.
I'm not convinced that, over a 5-7 year lifetime of an iMac, a reduced-power single-core G5 iMac would outperform a Core Duo iMac in pro apps. First, the iMac's form factor probably limits it to 2GB of memory. Given this limitation, will 64-bit pro apps on reduced-speed iMac G5 perform better than the (eventually) optimized 32-bit versions on the iMac Core Duo?
For the iMac's form factor, I think the Core Duo's high performance per watt and dual cores will make up for its limitations for being 32-bit.
To be fair, why don't you also tell how many SP Win95, Win98, and WinME had?
Because those "home" operating systems based on the 9x kernel did not have "Service Packs." Until WinXP Home, only the "professional" versions based on the NT kernel have had Service Packs. WinXP Home gets Service Packs because it ditched the 9x kernel and now shares the same NT kernel as WinXP Pro.
Not too sure why you're post was rated insightful...
I think it's because most Windows-using Slashdot readers like the idea of getting free fixes and enhancements for 5+ years after the OS's release. The reduction in Service Packs might mean MS is reducing the amount of support for their legacy operating systems.
Also, it won't be available to anyone with a dialup modem (unless they've got a provider that doesn't cut them off every 2 hours like the ones I've used do).
Customers have the option of ordering a "free" CD (plus shipping and handling) from Microsoft. Here's the link for WinXP SP2:
As I have to keep saying: Bullshit factor too high!
Settle down, Beavis. I'm not disagreeing with your point (I think) that AMD makes competitive CPUs for "thin and light" notebooks. However, I still think your comparison (which you call "as fair as possible") is inaccurate, incomplete, and (therefore) unfair.
You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers,
That's a nice source. I just bookmarked it. It doesn't list all of the newest CPUs, though.
overstated the Core Solo's power,
Not according to my source, which I trust to provide accurate numbers. Considering that Intel uses a different power rating standard than AMD, it's not fair to compare AMD's spec sheet with Intel's spec sheet. Intel was the one to switch to "Thermal Design Power" when AMD was still listing "Max Power Output", and now that AMD has switched to "Thermal Design Power" Intel changes once again, seemingly trying to make sure direct comparisons are never fair.
Your source apparently made a typo for Core Solo. It's an easy typo to make (37 instead of 27). For the other Intel CPUs in our comparisons, your source's "Thermal Design Power" numbers match Intel's "Thermal Guideline" numbers. I'm sure "Thermal Guideline" has the same meaning as "Thermal Design Power." I don't know why the heck Intel would change the term if it means the same thing. Maybe they think the work "guideline" is clearer than "design power." BTW, "Thermal Design Power" is defined in the "glossary of terms" for Intel's Spec Finder tool as:
The maximum amount of heat which a thermal solution must be able to dissipate from the processor so that the processor will operate under normal operating conditions.
Unfortunately, "Thermal Guideline" is not defined in the glossary (ugh). However, that definition sounds like a "guideline" to me. Your source seems to agree.
and didn't include the Celeron M
What the hell do you think "mCel-2.5G 35W" means?
(Hell) "mCel-2.5G 35W" means Mobile Celeron, a discontinued line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on desktop CPU cores (Pentium III and 4). These CPUs sucked ass and were inappropriate for "thin and light" notebooks. The model you listed is based on the Northwood P4 core, but was "crippled" by halving the L2 cache (down to 256K) and lowering the bus to 400MHz.
"Celeron M" means Celeron M, the current line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on the Pentium M core. These CPUs kick ass and are hardly "crippled" by its halved cache (1MB) and reduced bus (400MHz). Even without SpeedStep, the Celeron M is a high-performing, low-power, and cool CPU that's good for "thin and light" notebooks.
You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.
That's because the "low power versions" are so vastly slower that it would be completely unfair to throw them in this comparison... Obviously, being incredibly unfair doesn't phase you.
I included LV versions and "lower power" versions of Pentium M and Celeron M for two reasons: (1) AMD apparently doesn't make true "low voltage" (LV) versions, and (2) you included a "lower power" version of T
AMD's mobile CPUs are now commonly lower power than even the best of the Pentium-Ms to-date. That's in-addition to being cheaper, and higher performance at the same time...
And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.
Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.
Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:
I ask them if they wouldn't like to drive the same car as their mechanic, or at a minimum, that they would trust their mechanic's advice on what is reliable and offers good performance for the dollar... If you look under the hood of my computer, you'll find AMD; because they offer a stable, affordable, and stronger alternative to Intel.
Then I think, for most of your customers, the chipset is more important than the CPU. Both Intel and AMD make reliable and high performing CPUs. Until fairly recently, I think Intel chipsets (especially on Intel motherboards) have been more reliable than chipsets made for AMD CPUs. Of course, lame PC manufacturers can mess this all up with bad power supplies and motherboard designs.
I would think most of your customers that are asking for your advice would value reliability over performance, since current 64-bit Celerons and Semprons will likely have enough performance to last the life of their computers. For system reliability, I might recommend Intel from a good manufacturer and model line. The drawback of most low-cost retail Intel PCs is the lack of a PCI-Express x16 slot (although GMA 950 might be good enough), so buyers should shop carefully or get one built.
AMD offers significantly more performance per dollar, but buyers should be warned about common flakey chipsets. The newest chipsets from NVIDIA and ATI should be recommended.
A few months ago, I think a 64-bit Socket 775 Intel 945G chipset based platform would have been the best choice for many consumers. Today, an NVIDIA GeForce 6100 chipset based platform would probably be the better choice. This might change again when low-cost desktop Yonah PCs are released, again when Socket M2 Semprons arrive, again when Conroe-based Celerons arrive, etc.
Probably hardware (I'm not sure). TFA hints that Intel's 945 chipset is used. Intel Precision Cooling Technology has been a feature of Intel chipsets, but I'm not sure if it's used in the notebook chipsets in the MacBook Pro and iMac.
From that Intel link:
Intel® Precision Cooling Technology is available on selected Intel® Desktop Boards and is OS-independent; it works on Windows* or Linux* based systems. Here are just a few of the advantages of Intel® Precision Cooling technology:
Fan speeds adjust real time according to system temperatures
Reduces unnecessary noise & energy consumption
OS-independent - not affected by a software failure or virus
Separate thermal zones for CPU & system temperature
Default setting programmed into BIOS
Controlled by an advanced management ASIC
Therefore, Merom (64-bit) CPU might be supported
on
New iMac disassembled
·
· Score: 1
It's interesting to note that the new iMacs are using a standard Intel 945 Series chipset, and an Intel 82801GBM southbridge...
I haven't seen any articles confirming if Merom will work with the earliest Yonah motherboards, but some articles have confirmed that Merom will be compatible with this chipset:
One thing that we found very interesting is that Napa also appears to be the platform of choice for Merom. In fact, Intel's platform for Merom is listed in their literature as either being Napa or a Napa Refresh, not a brand new design. We are hoping this means that Merom will work in Yonah motherboards, also hopefully meaning that Conroe will work in the next-generation Pentium D motherboards.
For those that don't know, Merom is the next-generation "Core Duo" with EM64T (64-bit), Virtualization, floating point performance enhancements, longer pipeline (14 stages), and a 4-issue out-of-order execution engine (Yonah is 3-issue).
Instead of the PC horror of one fan that has to suck out a large volume the whole time and runs at full blast no matter what.
As others have pointed out, this is incorrect and sounds suspiciously like FUD. Intel chipsets have had temperature-controlled fans since at least the 845 chipset, which was released in 2001. From that link to Intel's site:
With Intel® Precision Cooling Technology, your system fans will automatically adjust their speeds according to the internal chassis temperature. If your system temperature is within normal operating specifications, your fans will operate at reduced speeds, thereby reducing noise and power consumption.
...
Fan speeds adjust real time according to system temperatures
Reduces unnecessary noise & energy consumption
OS-independent - not affected by a software failure or virus
Separate thermal zones for CPU & system temperature
In the Windows/Linux world, it either comes preinstalled, or you steal it, which is to say, borrow it from your pals or at work.
Are you aware that current versions of Office require activation? I don't think stealing is easy enough for average users now. I don't think most users want to use a "cracked" version.
I think your other point is still valid, though. Cheap preinstalled OEM versions are not available for Mac users. Office "Basic" (Word, Excel, and Outlook) is a $150 option on Dell PCs and others offer similar deals. The only Office option on Apple's site is the $400 "Standard" version. Why won't MS offer a basic OEM version of Office for Mac users?
I believe the pro apps SHOULD run, they will just be emulated in Roseta.
The parent should have provided the updated Rosetta link, but I think you (and the other replier) are incorrect (for now).
From that updated Rosetta page:
Most existing applications will continue to run, thanks to Rosetta. Pro applications from Apple -- including Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Aperture, Logic Pro, Logic Express, and Final Cut Express -- are not supported by Rosetta. For these applications, you can upgrade to the Universal version for minimal cost...
To get these deals, come back to Apple.com after February 1, 2006. Apple expects Universal application availability by March 31, 2006.
Slashdot Mirror
Since TFA showed a 2.0GHz Pentium M outperforming a 2.4GHz Turion in most of the important benchmarks, I think the 1.66GHz Core Solo (with its architectural improvements over the Pentium M) might outperform a 1.8GHz Turion by even more.
I think TFA is pretty weak, though. They emphasize the importance of performance per watt, but they don't include the widely available Turion MT. They also used freakin' desktop chipsets with these mobile processors. Doesn't this make the "system power consumption" numbers useless for most readers? I thought the mobile chipsets were supposed to have important power-saving technologies in their FSB, memory contollers, wirless modules, etc.
I agree that the comparison between dual-core Pentium D/Xeon and dual-core Athlon 64/Opteron is a farce. However, Yonah (even with its 667MHz bus and non-integrated memory controller) did quite well against Athlon 64.
Of course, that doesn't mean bandwidth won't be a problem for Cloverton when they move to 4 cores. I believe Cloverton will still have a FSB and seperate memory controller while Opteron will have next-gen HyperTransport and integrated memory controller(s).
Since so many users (especially businesses) will continue to use XP Pro while it's still under "extended support," I'm sure third-party software will continue to be written for XP if many of the software company's customers are still using XP. Only Microsoft has an interest in shutting out a large number of existing XP users (so users will upgrade to Vista).
An older version of Intel's notebook guidelines for Vista (before the current 945GM chipset was released) said that GMA 900 would run Vista without the new Aero interface.
The key difference is support for Windows Vista Display Driver model (WDDM) drivers, which is required for Aero. GMA 950 has it now, GMA 900 doesn't. I don't know if WDDM support will be added to GMA 900 before Vista's release, but I doubt it.
Note that GMA 900 did a fine job running OS X's Aqua interface in Apple's Developer Transition Kits. Therefore, I think GMA 900 should run Aero if Intel or MS writes the drivers for it.
One might argue that Halo 2 did redefine FPSs and multiplayer for millions of console owners who do not own a heavy-duty gaming PC. Even today, I would guess that XBox owners outnumber PC gamers with a GPU better than the XBox's GeForce 3. I would also guess that XBox Live users outnumber online PC gamers by a heck of a lot.
On the other hand, why the heck am I defending the hype from an MS press shill?
That is only a requirement if you want to run the Aero user interface (it must also support Windows Display Driver Model). I can't believe I haven't seen any "Score:3+" comments mentioning Vista's "Classic" UI mode, which doesn't require a powerful GPU. In fact, it looks a lot like Windows XP with its "Luna" interface deactivated. According to that Wikipedia article (don't use as a final source), Vista's "classic mode" only has the same graphics card requirements as Windows 2000.
Here's what I think is a better Microsoft page describing (and providing links to) Vista's likely requirements:
Here's the non-specific requirements from that page: It then gets a little more specific about the requirements for the optional Aero user interface: Finally, it describes the "classic mode" that Vista will fall back on if the graphics aren't powerful enough for the Aero UI: That page I linked to also has links that define what a "modern CPU" is and which graphics processors support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM).So to answer the freakin' article's question: Yes, if your Core Duo or Solo notebook had integrated Intel graphics, it will work with Vista because GMA 950 supports WDDM. Heck, it will likely work with the new Aero UI. But since the reader specifically stated he "doesn't care about semitransparent windows and cool animations," even an old Pentium M or Celeron M notebook with the 915GM chipset (GMA 900 graphics) will work with Vista in "classic mode." Here's a link to an Intel page on mobile minimum recommendations for Vista:
From that Intel page:Getting back to the "Buy or Wait" topic, note that buyers of Windows XP Home computers will see their "mainstream" support end 2 years after Windows Vista is released. WinXP Home does not get "extended" support like WinXP Pro does. For home computer buyers who don't want to deal with upgrading their OS in 2 years, it might be worth waiting for Vista (or getting XP Pro).
Also note that Microsoft sometimes extends support for products that are still in wide use. For example, Windows 98 still gets critical security updates for chissakes.
MSN Music (using PlaysForSure) -- you can burn up to 7 CDs without changing the track setup
Others have pointed out it's actually five. MSN Music also allows five authorized computers.
And this is different from MSN Music - how? The point of this reply is that usage rules for PlaysForSure files are set by the music store and the record companies, not the DRM format. MSN Music's usage rules are similar to iTMS, but is limited to Windows computers. I think they both suck, but I can understand other people finding the terms reasonable.
Apple can acquire a license) just like everybody else, but they don't. Apparently, nobody else is allowed to acquire a FairPlay license. I guess Apple is, and will always be, the only company that makes good portable music players.
I think everybody was surprised when the G5 iMac switched to a 32-bit chip. Who predicted it? All predictions I saw only mentioned the G4 Macs (mini, iBook, PowerBook) as possible candidates for 32-bit Yonah.
Seems bass ackwards to me.
After the initial shock, it actually seems reasonable to me. Despite its 32-bitness, Core Duo is very fast, cool (designed for notebooks), and dual-core. Intel's switch to 65nm seems to be going much smoother than their (and IBM's) switch to 90nm. Is IBM producing a fast dual-core G5 that's cool enough for the iMac's form factor and cheap enough for the iMac's price point? Remember, Apple touted "performance per watt" when explaining the switch to Intel.
It seems that that would only hurt performance in "pro" lever apps. But hey I guess we'llhave to wait and see what the towers have in them before passing judgement.
The towers will have Conroe or Woodcrest, both of which are 64-bit CPUs and are due in July at the earliest. The iMac will also probably move to Conroe later this year.
I'm not convinced that, over a 5-7 year lifetime of an iMac, a reduced-power single-core G5 iMac would outperform a Core Duo iMac in pro apps. First, the iMac's form factor probably limits it to 2GB of memory. Given this limitation, will 64-bit pro apps on reduced-speed iMac G5 perform better than the (eventually) optimized 32-bit versions on the iMac Core Duo?
For the iMac's form factor, I think the Core Duo's high performance per watt and dual cores will make up for its limitations for being 32-bit.
Because those "home" operating systems based on the 9x kernel did not have "Service Packs." Until WinXP Home, only the "professional" versions based on the NT kernel have had Service Packs. WinXP Home gets Service Packs because it ditched the 9x kernel and now shares the same NT kernel as WinXP Pro.
Not too sure why you're post was rated insightful...
I think it's because most Windows-using Slashdot readers like the idea of getting free fixes and enhancements for 5+ years after the OS's release. The reduction in Service Packs might mean MS is reducing the amount of support for their legacy operating systems.
Customers have the option of ordering a "free" CD (plus shipping and handling) from Microsoft. Here's the link for WinXP SP2:
They might not "love" it, but they released two service packs for Windows 2000 after Windows XP Professional was released:
Win2K SP4 was released 20 months after WinXP Pro was released.
Settle down, Beavis. I'm not disagreeing with your point (I think) that AMD makes competitive CPUs for "thin and light" notebooks. However, I still think your comparison (which you call "as fair as possible") is inaccurate, incomplete, and (therefore) unfair.
That's a nice source. I just bookmarked it. It doesn't list all of the newest CPUs, though.
Your source apparently made a typo for Core Solo. It's an easy typo to make (37 instead of 27). For the other Intel CPUs in our comparisons, your source's "Thermal Design Power" numbers match Intel's "Thermal Guideline" numbers. I'm sure "Thermal Guideline" has the same meaning as "Thermal Design Power." I don't know why the heck Intel would change the term if it means the same thing. Maybe they think the work "guideline" is clearer than "design power." BTW, "Thermal Design Power" is defined in the "glossary of terms" for Intel's Spec Finder tool as:
Unfortunately, "Thermal Guideline" is not defined in the glossary (ugh). However, that definition sounds like a "guideline" to me. Your source seems to agree.
(Hell) "mCel-2.5G 35W" means Mobile Celeron, a discontinued line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on desktop CPU cores (Pentium III and 4). These CPUs sucked ass and were inappropriate for "thin and light" notebooks. The model you listed is based on the Northwood P4 core, but was "crippled" by halving the L2 cache (down to 256K) and lowering the bus to 400MHz.
"Celeron M" means Celeron M, the current line of low-cost mobile CPUs based on the Pentium M core. These CPUs kick ass and are hardly "crippled" by its halved cache (1MB) and reduced bus (400MHz). Even without SpeedStep, the Celeron M is a high-performing, low-power, and cool CPU that's good for "thin and light" notebooks.
I included LV versions and "lower power" versions of Pentium M and Celeron M for two reasons: (1) AMD apparently doesn't make true "low voltage" (LV) versions, and (2) you included a "lower power" version of T
And that's as fair of a comparison as possible.
Your comparison is unfair, inaccurate, and incomplete. You didn't include any links to where you got your numbers, overstated the Core Solo's power, and didn't include the Celeron M (which is based on the Pentium M core) or Core Duo. You also neglected to include the low power versions of the Intel CPUs.
Here's my attempt to make your comparison more fair and complete:
AMD (W = Thermal Design Power)
vs Intel (W = Thermal Guideline)
Then I think, for most of your customers, the chipset is more important than the CPU. Both Intel and AMD make reliable and high performing CPUs. Until fairly recently, I think Intel chipsets (especially on Intel motherboards) have been more reliable than chipsets made for AMD CPUs. Of course, lame PC manufacturers can mess this all up with bad power supplies and motherboard designs.
I would think most of your customers that are asking for your advice would value reliability over performance, since current 64-bit Celerons and Semprons will likely have enough performance to last the life of their computers. For system reliability, I might recommend Intel from a good manufacturer and model line. The drawback of most low-cost retail Intel PCs is the lack of a PCI-Express x16 slot (although GMA 950 might be good enough), so buyers should shop carefully or get one built.
AMD offers significantly more performance per dollar, but buyers should be warned about common flakey chipsets. The newest chipsets from NVIDIA and ATI should be recommended.
A few months ago, I think a 64-bit Socket 775 Intel 945G chipset based platform would have been the best choice for many consumers. Today, an NVIDIA GeForce 6100 chipset based platform would probably be the better choice. This might change again when low-cost desktop Yonah PCs are released, again when Socket M2 Semprons arrive, again when Conroe-based Celerons arrive, etc.
From that Intel link:
I haven't seen any articles confirming if Merom will work with the earliest Yonah motherboards, but some articles have confirmed that Merom will be compatible with this chipset:
From Anandtech's link:
For those that don't know, Merom is the next-generation "Core Duo" with EM64T (64-bit), Virtualization, floating point performance enhancements, longer pipeline (14 stages), and a 4-issue out-of-order execution engine (Yonah is 3-issue).As others have pointed out, this is incorrect and sounds suspiciously like FUD. Intel chipsets have had temperature-controlled fans since at least the 845 chipset, which was released in 2001. From that link to Intel's site:
Are you aware that current versions of Office require activation? I don't think stealing is easy enough for average users now. I don't think most users want to use a "cracked" version.
I think your other point is still valid, though. Cheap preinstalled OEM versions are not available for Mac users. Office "Basic" (Word, Excel, and Outlook) is a $150 option on Dell PCs and others offer similar deals. The only Office option on Apple's site is the $400 "Standard" version. Why won't MS offer a basic OEM version of Office for Mac users?
The parent should have provided the updated Rosetta link, but I think you (and the other replier) are incorrect (for now).
From that updated Rosetta page: