MacBook Intel Core 2 Duo with 800 MHz FSB

I know that the Intel Core 2 Duo are going to come out sometime next year with an upgrade to the FSB from 667MHz to 800MHz for the notebooks. I was wondering if anyone knew when Apple was planning to incorporate this next generation platform in their MacBook's?

I'm interested in getting a Mac Book, but want to wait for the higher FSB if it's not going to be a long ways off.

i reckon they will. and then 3 months later, they will have 3.2ghz core 2 duos in the mbp, then a 1000mhz fsb, then quad core 3 months after that. then so on and blah...

and then they'll start adding new features cooking and cleaning too...

benzslrpee said:

and then they'll start adding new features cooking and cleaning too...

Click to expand...

awww cooking a cleaning... I was hoping they would make one that woudl wake up in the morning and go to work/school for you. Then come home and teach you everything while you cooked/cleaned for the mbp... ****... Guess i'll have to wait another 12 months for that feature.

The question is actually more important than some of the replies have credited.

Whilst specs are always moving, it's well known that real life performance increases between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are virtually non-exisistent with the same speed FSB. So there is likely to be a much bigger performance leap when the 800mhz FSB Core 2 Duos are released.

The wait is really on Intel as these are not yet ready for notebooks. I think you're looking at at least April - June before Apple will have them and slightly earlier for Windows based machines.

Thanks Zoolook... That was the date estimate I was looking for. I don't know that I can wait till April, but I pretty much have to wait for Leopard and Vista anyway, so maybe a few more months won't be such a big deal...

Actually I think the relevance of the question is more towards the cost of RAM.

Apple has juggled people around with RAM a few times now, in the last 2 years they went from DDR to DDR2 to FB-DIMM on the powermac / mac pro line. If you are sitting on 2+ gig of RAM, upgrading to a new box is a lot more expensive than it looks at first glance (unless you're willing to buy a new box with less RAM).

I'm new to the mac world, so the Intel base processor is better than the IBM based one? I thought the Intel based processor would make the Mac's more like a PC than a Mac. They wouldn't be as exclusive and wanted as they once were. Honestly I wanted the IBM based Mac, but I jumped on the forum to see what everyone else had to say about the new processors.

Grump
:spook:

First post here. Not very computer literate but will probably be buying a Macbook in the not too distant future and came about this (FSB) thing. What is it and how does it affect the performance of the machine? What a great site for Mac info. Oh, I did a search on FSB but most of the posts assume you already know what it is.

bobk said:

First post here. Not very computer literate but will probably be buying a Macbook in the not too distant future and came about this (FSB) thing. What is it and how does it affect the performance of the machine? What a great site for Mac info. Oh, I did a search on FSB but most of the posts assume you already know what it is.

Click to expand...

FSB stands for Front Side Bus and the speed of the Front Side Bus determines, along with other things, how quickly your computer can shuffle data around the system. The thing it most directly affects is how fast data can get from the CPU to RAM and back again and well as from the CPU to the GPU (Graphics processing Unit).

Most people who buy computers believe the most important thing is how fast the CPU is (which is partially true). Others understand that having a lot of RAM is important and some others even understand that graphics memory plays a part in performance (particularly for games). Very few people really understand why the bus speed is important too or even what it means. However, after the raw CPU speed and performance, FSB speed, data rates and latency are the next biggest factors.

Many websites, and indeed Apple themselves, claim that the Core2Duo is up to 35% or even 40% faster than the CoreDuo. In synthetic benchmarks, that test only the CPU, this might be true. In real life, the increase in performance is more like 10% and the reason for this is that the Core2Duo on the latest machines is limited by the FSB, which runs at 667mhz. The fact that data cannot travel any quicker once processed on a C2D machine compared to a CoreDuo machine means that in real life tasks, a user would barely notice the difference.

The reason is that the RAM and GFX cards are not getting the processed data any quicker than they would on a CoreDuo and although this is over simplifying things a little, this would be like having a 4 litre V8 engine in one car and a 1.2 litre flat four in another, but with the same gear ratio.

Some desktop PCs are already getting the Core2Duo with the 800mhz Motherboards and faster RAM and these machines show a much bigger advantage in real world applications over the CoreDuo/667mhz FSB machines.

Wiki has a decent page about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_side_bus

Having said that, the current MacBooks which have a 667mhz FSB and PC5200 RAM are exceptionally fast. Also, FSB speed increases are much rarer than CPU speed increases.

One final thing to understand is ratios. Everything on the BUS must run as a multiple of the Front Side Bus. In the old days of the Pentium, the FSB was typically 66mhz. PCI ran at 33MHZ or 0.5x the FSB. AGP ran at 66mhz (or 1x the FSB). The CPU typically runs at 3, 4 or 5x the FSB. The CoreDuos run at 1.83mhz and 2.0ghz on the MacBooks (2.5x and 3x).

Thanks for the info. It doesn't look like this is something that should hold up a purchase. I'm not in a huge hurry, maybe Jan or Feb but could pull the trigger earlier if there was a good reason such as earlier update or discounts.

Thanks for the post ZooLook - probably the most informative post I've read yet. So I have a questions for you. It seems like you know a lot about computers, and I must say, after looking at your info, it made me feel better. I was recently torn between buying my MacBook or a MBP. With the student discount, the MB was 1200, and the MBP was 1800. I wanted to make the smart choice, and I couldn't justify forking over the extra 600 for the MBP. So I got the MB. I am almost regretting it, only because of the ease of it getting dirty. Even so, I almost feel like I'm missing out by not buying the MBP. I know this is a stupid questions, but personally, why did you buy the MB instead of the MBP? I'm currently a student and am working an office job. I don't think I need anything more than this current laptop, however I am used to spending around $2k for my laptops - I have two. Anyway, just curious.
Thanks!

Zoolook said:

FSB stands for Front Side Bus and the speed of the Front Side Bus determines, along with other things, how quickly your computer can shuffle data around the system. The thing it most directly affects is how fast data can get from the CPU to RAM and back again and well as from the CPU to the GPU (Graphics processing Unit).

Most people who buy computers believe the most important thing is how fast the CPU is (which is partially true). Others understand that having a lot of RAM is important and some others even understand that graphics memory plays a part in performance (particularly for games). Very few people really understand why the bus speed is important too or even what it means. However, after the raw CPU speed and performance, FSB speed, data rates and latency are the next biggest factors.

Many websites, and indeed Apple themselves, claim that the Core2Duo is up to 35% or even 40% faster than the CoreDuo. In synthetic benchmarks, that test only the CPU, this might be true. In real life, the increase in performance is more like 10% and the reason for this is that the Core2Duo on the latest machines is limited by the FSB, which runs at 667mhz. The fact that data cannot travel any quicker once processed on a C2D machine compared to a CoreDuo machine means that in real life tasks, a user would barely notice the difference.

The reason is that the RAM and GFX cards are not getting the processed data any quicker than they would on a CoreDuo and although this is over simplifying things a little, this would be like having a 4 litre V8 engine in one car and a 1.2 litre flat four in another, but with the same gear ratio.

Some desktop PCs are already getting the Core2Duo with the 800mhz Motherboards and faster RAM and these machines show a much bigger advantage in real world applications over the CoreDuo/667mhz FSB machines.

Wiki has a decent page about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_side_bus

Having said that, the current MacBooks which have a 667mhz FSB and PC5200 RAM are exceptionally fast. Also, FSB speed increases are much rarer than CPU speed increases.

One final thing to understand is ratios. Everything on the BUS must run as a multiple of the Front Side Bus. In the old days of the Pentium, the FSB was typically 66mhz. PCI ran at 33MHZ or 0.5x the FSB. AGP ran at 66mhz (or 1x the FSB). The CPU typically runs at 3, 4 or 5x the FSB. The CoreDuos run at 1.83mhz and 2.0ghz on the MacBooks (2.5x and 3x).

Click to expand...

In Addition:
This is why it was such a big deal a few years ago, and why Apple was able to claim the, "fastest desktop in the world" seat. Apple had a 1Ghz+ FSB when the rest of the PC industry was still sitting at 500Mhz. It's the bottle necking that is the concern. The effective speed of you system is limited by the FSB. Even if your CPU is 2.xGhz if it can only communicate with the rest of the system at 677Mhz, it wont be doing all it can. I mean that like a 1/3 the speed of the CPU. So the processor can only communicate with the RAM, HD, GPU at 1/3rd of it's own speed.

Really it's kinda sad when you think about it. Of course you also has to consider the max speeds of the RAM vs. FSB. Imagine how amazing it would be if the FSB, and RAM could run at the same speed as the CPU.

I might hold off for the faster FSB too. I want another. I already have the MBP-CD, but I want the MBP-C2D also.

I thought that CD2 still has the same fsb as the CD so it doesn't make that much difference. Is the fsb an expensive or major part to change as it seems most CPUs are far faster and most people are going for more ram as well so why not upgrade the fsb to keep up?

Ice Cream Man said:

In Addition:
This is why it was such a big deal a few years ago, and why Apple was able to claim the, "fastest desktop in the world" seat. Apple had a 1Ghz+ FSB when the rest of the PC industry was still sitting at 500Mhz. It's the bottle necking that is the concern. The effective speed of you system is limited by the FSB. Even if your CPU is 2.xGhz if it can only communicate with the rest of the system at 677Mhz, it wont be doing all it can. I mean that like a 1/3 the speed of the CPU. So the processor can only communicate with the RAM, HD, GPU at 1/3rd of it's own speed.

Really it's kinda sad when you think about it. Of course you also has to consider the max speeds of the RAM vs. FSB. Imagine how amazing it would be if the FSB, and RAM could run at the same speed as the CPU.

I might hold off for the faster FSB too. I want another. I already have the MBP-CD, but I want the MBP-C2D also.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. So if what you are saying is true, then what's the point in purchasing the faster gHz? Is that a waste of money? I can see why Ram would be important, because Zoolook was saying that FSB carries the info to the Ram to be processed then back again. What exactly does the Processor, or the "gHz" do then?

gblader said:

Thanks for the post ZooLook - probably the most informative post I've read yet. So I have a questions for you. It seems like you know a lot about computers, and I must say, after looking at your info, it made me feel better. I was recently torn between buying my MacBook or a MBP. With the student discount, the MB was 1200, and the MBP was 1800. I wanted to make the smart choice, and I couldn't justify forking over the extra 600 for the MBP. So I got the MB. I am almost regretting it, only because of the ease of it getting dirty. Even so, I almost feel like I'm missing out by not buying the MBP. I know this is a stupid questions, but personally, why did you buy the MB instead of the MBP? I'm currently a student and am working an office job. I don't think I need anything more than this current laptop, however I am used to spending around $2k for my laptops - I have two. Anyway, just curious.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

Well, personally I bought the MacBook because I wanted something small and easy to carry around. I used to have a big heavy Windows notebook that gave me bad shoulders when working away from home. Also, I actually prefer the way the MacBook looks (I have the Black one) rather than the silver MBP. The only thing I regret slightly is not having a decent GPU - I am unhappy that there was no option for a 128MB X1900 in the MacBook.

Do I regret not going Pro? Sort of, but I am very happy with what I have. BTW, my Black MB looks a lot worse after a day of use than my Wife's white MB - just so you know, and I clean it every other day!

bobk said:

I thought that CD2 still has the same fsb as the CD so it doesn't make that much difference. Is the fsb an expensive or major part to change as it seems most CPUs are far faster and most people are going for more ram as well so why not upgrade the fsb to keep up?

Click to expand...

It is and that's the point, although next year there will be faster LogicBoards that will make the difference bigger.

gblader said:

I'm confused. So if what you are saying is true, then what's the point in purchasing the faster gHz? Is that a waste of money? I can see why Ram would be important, because Zoolook was saying that FSB carries the info to the Ram to be processed then back again. What exactly does the Processor, or the "gHz" do then?

Click to expand...

Virtually all systems are bottlenecked somewhere for some tasks, it's inevitable. Actually having an FSB run at the same speed as the CPU would not be necessarily a good thing, because all the components would run at the same speed, but not all components need to run at the same speed. Sometimes the CPU might need to process some data over 10 or 100 cycles before passing it to the HDD, RAM, GPU or something else. However if the only component you improve is the CPU, the gains you get will be smaller and smaller each time because something somewhere else will hold the system back, but it entirely depends on exactly what you're asking the machine to do. In answer to your question about wasting money... usually getting the very fastest CPU is the least performance per dollar. Getting the 2.16ghz CoreDuo over the 2ghz CoreDuo, considering the $200 price difference as it was, is not worth it, in my opinion. Some people though simply have to have the fastest thing available. In Apple's notebook range, the 2.0ghz CPU offers the best performance / price ratio I think.

Also, not all FSB speeds mean the same thing (and neither do CPU speeds for that matter). You have SDR, DDR, Quad Pumped data etc. Plus there are various RAM speeds and other factors (CAS latency for exmple) that influence how quickly data is sent or retrieved from memory. What is better, 667mhz RAM with a CL of 2.5 or 800mhz RAM with a CL of 3.0? Well depends on the task, so there is never a perfect solution. In Apple's world though, this is consistent (probably a big reason why OS X is so much more stable than Windows...!)

In the good old days, I used to overclock PCs and the best overclock was always overclocking the FSB, but you hit limits very quickly (usually the RAM couldn't keep up) so then you'd kill the RAM timings and up the FSB even more. Depending on the benchmark, either faster RAM timings or faster FSB got you better results and occasionally a slower FSB with a faster CPU did better - but the reason why is very complex...:biohazard

Anyway...

The 800mhz FSB C2D, when released, will be a fair bit quicker than the 667mhz CD, both in benchmarks and real life. If you're editing HD, using massive numbers of plugins on Logic or batch processing hundreds of RAW images, you will be glad of the extra performance. If you're posting on forums, reading email and watching QT movies, you probably wouldn't even notice. The difference will still be far smaller than the jump from a 1.6ghz G4 to a 1.8ghz CoreDuo/

gblader said:

I'm confused. So if what you are saying is true, then what's the point in purchasing the faster gHz? Is that a waste of money? I can see why Ram would be important, because Zoolook was saying that FSB carries the info to the Ram to be processed then back again. What exactly does the Processor, or the "gHz" do then?

Click to expand...

If you have trouble with any of the acronyms, or don't know what something is, www.wikipedia.org is a handy resource. Just ask or I'll make it a link to. This is just a little crash course.

Well that's is where Apple had developed the phrase "Mhz Myth" It has long been a falsehood that the CPU speed was the only thing that mattered. However the PC industry took advantage of the common consumer who didn't know what it meant, all the consumer could see was a bigger number. (Megahurtz Myth)

As for upgrading FSB. it is much more complex. The system Bus is really the most difficult part to build/develop. So far they accomplish CPU speed and RAM speed by multiplying, or "quad pumping" the FSB. This is beyond programing or a simple equation. It is mechanical, and a matter of engineering. To make it possible to have the FSB that fast you have to deal with heat, and different laws of thermodynamics, and conductivity. And as it is we already have a fan and "heat sync" on the CPU, and the GPU. And two or more fans on the computers case.

The CPU, is the 'star of the show' it actually does the number crunching. It's a glorified calculator. RAM is temporary storage, till the CPU needs it. Or by modern motherboard architecture, till anything needs it.

Also development is limited, and Intel has floated by for along time on, Moores law However the industry has kind of hit a ceiling, and is focusing more on efficiency than speed right now. Some companies are progressing more smoothly than others. But really it's a matter of time.

I can give you more info if you want, but you might read up on some of those acronyms, thru the links i've given you in here. Then ask more