Is
Intel's
Core Duo processor a bug-ridden wreck that was rushed
into production before it was ready under pressure from PC manufacturers? Or is it a powerful processor that happens to
have a handful of bugs that can either be fixed or routed around without the end user knowing anything was ever wrong?
We're not sure, though we suspect the truth is closer to the latter scenario. But that hasn't stopped the conspiracy
theorists and alarmists from screaming that the Core Duo is a "train wreck" of a processor, since Geek.com
revealed that 34 bugs have been found in processor, some of which the site identifies as being "potentially
catastrophic." Cooler heads have pointed out that virtually every processor has bugs, and have even posted links
to the error documentation for AMD's Opteron, which runs several pages long. While we don't believe in giving Intel a
free ride, and we think any real bugs should be patched or fixed, it's worth noting that much of the alarm comes from
the Mac community, where suspicion of Intel runs high among some users. Our advice to them: if you really don't like
your Intel iMac or MacBook Pro, and would rather go back to your G5 (or maybe go way back, say, to a Quadra or LC),
we'd be happy to take it off your hands and do some extensive bug-testing.
posted January 24th 2006 3:12PM
I'm still waiting for the Conroe G5.
Macbook is awesome. Once i get mine, no one will ever be allowed to touch it. Kind of like Jacob's penis.
I'm still waiting for my MacBook Pro. Hope there are no noticible "bugs".
First mistake, Intel.
Redeem thyself Apple and invest in AMD :D
Yay Quadra! My Quadra 900 had 88Mb of RAM and a 250 MB HD! Boo-yah 040 68k Motorola!
Do not ALL CPU chipsets have minor bugs? I understand that the main AMD CPU has 85 pages of them noted so far. Most bugs are never seen by 99.999999% of users because they are only discovered in labs under extreme circumstances and have little or no relevance.
So how is all this news?
Let's also hear it for my LCIII, which came with 4mb of RAM (I thought I was living large when I upped it to 8) and a massive 120mb HD... 25mhz 68030 = hott.
I'm sure that everything will work out. Think back to the first Pentium chip. Everyone was like, "486 for life!" Hasn't everyone just finally decided to stay away from frist gen? It's hard for me because I like new toys, but just don't complain. You should know going into it what you're getting yourself into. But that's what makes early adoption fun, exciting and frustrating all in the same hour of unpacking!
Elijah - with the rep Intel has.. they shouldnt suffer from First Gen mistakes. .
No room for mistakes - espexcially ones that become household names with a product like APPLE behind it.
Not that I personally have a use for either - but just saying ;)
I wish AMD fanboys would stop for a second and realize what they are saying, AMD in my opinion has a better desktop chip, but thier mobile products can be used for
3 things,
1. Cooking
2. Heating a small apartment
3. cut the third thing
"Elijah - with the rep Intel has.. they shouldnt suffer from First Gen mistakes. ."
You mean like the one about the first gen Pentiums that he already mentioned?
With the complexity level of modern microprocessors, honestly it's kind of surprising that errors aren't more common than they are. I'm sick of people with absolutely no concept of what goes into the engineering of a successful project who rabidly slam a company for every slightest fault in a new product. Things escape the testing process, because you can't test for or even predict every single possible combination of contributing factors. That's why companies routinely revisit their products and work out the bugs over several generations.
To quote Dennis Nedry, "If you can find someone who can debug two million lines of code and interface eight connection machines for what I big for this job, I'd love to see him try."
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/79B6E24422AA101287256E93006C957E
Errate for the G5 CPU. Lots of errors there too.
errata or not, take it from someone who has been using the iMac Core Duo (2ghz, 1gb ram - boo-yah!) for a week now: I haven't experienced any erratic performance or crashes. I have yet to fire up any heavy duty apps (my first test will be the usually rock-stable Mathematica), but I imagine Apple developers knew the workarounds and included them in Rosetta's coding, that is why my non-Apple apps work just fine too.
And my message to the tech geeks who whine on and on about how some products don't conform to their elitist specifications should get off their arses and compete. Barriers to entry are fairly low these days, unless of course you want to build a fab plant - then you can whine to the tech-expert VCs....
*kicks the stupid AMD fanbois who obviously are the ones who blew this thing out of proportion*.
Seriously. geek.com is a POS when it comes to nonbiased "reporting" and I use the term losely.
i know if i get a second generation macbook pro, im gonna be pissed come g3. there's just something gross and disposable about these revisions.
but i know im going to cherish and prize my fabulous FIRST generation macbook. these critiques are so bloody PEDANTIC... im just like, why dont people want me to get this machine. its an amazing piece of hardware, like it or not, you jerkwads.
PEZ - So Intel wasn't a household name before Apple?
Silly fanboys...
every time i read an engadget article there are always tons of comments of people arguing, and most of the time they're not even intelligent points. "ThiS CoMpANY/PrOdduct is BETTER than THIS ONE LOLZZZZ" i'm all for a debate, but maybe people should contribute worthwhile ideas? i don't get why fanboys have to get so upset about other people admiring different technology either. just let people live how they want, yeah?
I don't care who's right about what, or what's better than what, I care about what works the best for me. I just want to pipe in and say that I have also had an Intel Core Duo Mac for a week or so now.
I must say, that I am extremely impressed, and also have not experienced any bugs. Mine is the 20" Core Duo iMac with the 2.0 Ghz processor.
I previously had a 17" with (I believe?) the 1.8 Ghz G5. That also worked superbly. I would say that this runs about the same speed, under Rosetta. Native Intel apps run much faster.
Solid as a rock. Experienced flakiness once with VLC, which can be flaky anyway. Pretty hard to run a media player that plays just about EVERY codec for every file type, while emulating for another processor without any problems. That said, other than the one flaky time in VLC, it's ran perfect every other time.
That and PocketMac for Blackberry isn't working yet, but they are fixing that. Awesome machine.
I think this is probably commonplace in the industry. That being said, I usually avoid first gen stuff, so I'll wait for the next revision of the MacBook Pros. That, and a larger portion of the software will be universal by then.
Every microprocessor ever shipped in the last 15 years has erratta. Intel, AMD, IBM, TI, take your pick. Usually ~20-80 over the life of the part, and a good company finds and publishes most of them themselves, as opposed to letting others find them. Perfection is HARD, and to be blunt, perfection isn't cost effective. If a company refuses to ship processors until they are perfect, said company dies.
"if you really don't like your Intel iMac or MacBook Pro, and would rather go back to a[n] LC", then you can have mine - I've still got it!
I remember the days where we used the old iMac G3's to warm our hands in the old school computer lab. Good times.
BTW I love your guys sense of humor. Taking in some Core Duo macs for extensive testing. That's why I love blogs like Engadget.
As already pointed out, all processors have bugs. The current Pentium 4s have 64 silicon bugs. The Athlon had 137. When you consider that there are ~100 errors in ~100-200 million transistors, that's a pretty good effort. You can't patch them, they're in hardware.
The only people that silicon errata affect is developers who code in assembly, and people who write compilers: They read the manufacturer's errata anyway, so they know how to avoid the problems.
There's no fuss to be made here at all.
ch424
If the CPU was so shotty and had so many errors, why the hell would they even sell it to u in the first place?
It's called first generation, people. All computers are works in progress.
Are we all complete idiots? Am I the only one not buying into this X-CORE hype?
I'd buy HT before DUAL/MULTI core CPU's any day.
The DUAL-CORE CPU is a crock. Unless the motherboard can handle it, there will be a bottleneck at the boad's bus. Then, in a year or so, Intel will come out with the "dual core 'aware' mobo" that YOU NEED TO BUY because it enhances the CPU's performance.
For #25: Eric, its "shoddy" and its "you". Also dont be so naive.
I prefer AMD, but in my personal experience I've been bitten by a lot more bugs on their side than Intel's. My K6-2 still can't get to high CPU and memory utilization without pulling a kernel panic (or horrendous BSOD under Windows) and it has a couple of other FPU bugs that are thankfully worked around by the kernel on startup.
So neither side is really perfect TBH.
I bought an Intel based Imac and so far so good. I am not a geek but I need to use photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, and final cut pro. After reading a bunch of these reviews, I am walking away paronoid. Should I bring it back? I already can't get a driver for my M-Audio Firewire Solo.
"apple customers are a bunch of suckers and always will be."
Dude -- that new windows laptop you are eyeing has the same chip.... of course I guess you actually use AMD and are sore that Apple didn't pick them to run with.
Question for all: do the "__x faster claims" actually show how biased these "fair and balanced" benchmark tests are toward x86? Cause they say one thing now, but PowerPC seems to have actually been a little slighted given that the "__x faster" ain't quite there yet.
Appears the Spec tests are optimized for Intel chips, and real world performance doesn't quite relate on Intel chips. So that Pentium4 may not be as blazing as you think.... Good news for AMD as well.
Well, I have had both AMD and Intel in both notebooks and desktops. Right now I am on the Centrino on my Sony Vaio, and LOVE it. Blows the AMD I had right out of the water. In my desktop, I also think that Intel did better, but that is just my OPINION. Of course I am open to other products.
My main point is this - Sometimes Intel will be better, sometimes AMD will be better. But in terms of stability, the G4-G5 has ALWAYS been better, Macs are just much more advanced than PC's. So people, go with the flow. Don't be all uptight and so focused on one little thing.
That is just my two cents worth.
IMHO, the Core Duo is already doing what it's supposed to be doing perfectly: driving down the cost of existing Centrino chipsets so I can buy one on a low-priced model.