PDA

View Full Version : Intel Core 2 Extreme 2.6 GHz X7800 Announced




MacRumors
Jul 16, 2007, 10:38 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Intel today introduced the first mobile "Extreme" branded processor, the X7800, clocked at 2.6 GHz. What's more, Intel has removed over-clocking restrictions, allowing OEM manufacturers or enthusiasts to eek additional power out of the chip if so desired.

Apple currently uses Intel's Core 2 Duo chips at speeds up to 2.4 GHz (the previous top speed) in its MacBook Pro, MacBook, and iMac computers. There is no hard evidence yet that Apple will use Intel's latest chip in its computers.

Intel also announced a new desktop processor today, however the announcement does not look to have much bearing on the Apple community, as Apple has continually eschewed Intel's Desktop products in favor of Intel's less power hungry mobile products or more powerful workstation/server Xeons.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/16/intel-core-2-extreme-2-6-ghz-x7800-announced/)



failsafe1
Jul 16, 2007, 10:41 AM
Will this feed into the ultra portable rumors?

Karpfish
Jul 16, 2007, 10:42 AM
i think its too much power

Caitlyn
Jul 16, 2007, 10:42 AM
My thought was maybe that these will go into the MBPs and then the current SR processors will enter the MacBook. Thoughts on that?

P-Worm
Jul 16, 2007, 10:44 AM
I wonder if all those people that were complaining that we didn't have new MacBooks are now upset that we got them before the new chips came out. It seems like people are never happy around here.

P-Worm

mdntcallr
Jul 16, 2007, 10:46 AM
It would be great for apple to start using some of Intel's desktop chips.

I am sick of laptop chips in Imacs. Yes they may be ok enough for Mac Minis, but Apple needs to offer up a mid sized tower or imac that has more power than a laptop.

To hold back on power just so they have a small form is very annoying.

Also, this chip would be a mobile chip, so i wouldn't believe they would hold back, instead probably offer it as an option on their highest end macbook pro's.

Apple, cmon, please offer desktop extreme chips in a mid sized upgradable tower!!

JobsRules
Jul 16, 2007, 10:49 AM
It would be great for apple to start using some of Intel's desktop chips.

Yeah, but in what? A headless 'Mac Midi' would be great but where would that sit with iMacs and MacPros?

jmsait19
Jul 16, 2007, 10:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Intel today introduced the first mobile "Extreme" branded processor, the X7800

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/16/intel-core-2-extreme-2-6-ghz-x7800-announced/)

What does the "Extreme" mean? Is it just some arbitrary marketing that means "fast and cool so you want to buy it!"? Or does it actually reflect some type of change on the chip...

mashinhead
Jul 16, 2007, 10:49 AM
i think its too much power

I think it is for mbp just because they're so bloody hot as is. Can't imagine more heat. But they were just updated so I don't see this happening so soon. But you might count them in the new iMacs if they're not already in production

longofest
Jul 16, 2007, 10:53 AM
What does the "Extreme" mean? Is it just some arbitrary marketing that means "fast and cool so you want to buy it!"? Or does it actually reflect some type of change on the chip...

both. Its a marketing term that Intel has used on its desktop line, and is now using on the high-end of mobile line. There is some hardware distinction, mainly the higher clock speed and the ability to overclock.

Shadow
Jul 16, 2007, 10:55 AM
Will this feed into the ultra portable rumors?

Probaby not, it'll get too hot and require too much power :(

k2k koos
Jul 16, 2007, 10:56 AM
Okay, okay, here it comes.... drumroll please!







...will this fit in an iPhone ? :o



........sorry, couldn't help it, I'd seen this kind of nonsense in so many of our threads here in the past, I thought it was becoming a cult of it's own.

There, now that the iThingy has been mentioned, lets swiftly move on.

I hope that Apple releases a system that fits between the Mac Pro and the iMac, sort of mini tower, that could use these processors. Or let's move the new iMac, revamped Mac mini away from Mobile components where ever possible, and squeeze some of these processors in where possible (granted, probably not in a Mac mini, but 'd love to see that updated, please Apple, DONT kill the Mac mini!:apple:

oscuh
Jul 16, 2007, 10:57 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see these go in MBPs ... as a simple mid-cycle bump ... no fanfare, etc.

Object-X
Jul 16, 2007, 11:01 AM
Can I have one of these in my new iMac please?

KindredMAC
Jul 16, 2007, 11:01 AM
I too am getting tired of a weak mobile chip in an iMac.

Apple should layout the line with the following:

Dual Core mobile chip:
MacBook
MacBook Pro

Quad Core mobile or desktop chip:
iMac

Dual Quad Core desktop chips:
Mac Pro

Also, how is it that everyone is happy with Intel releasing chips with max speeds that are at the same number as 3 years ago? This chipset maxes out at 2.6??? I know that they are doing more with these chips by making them multi-cored and tweaking the FSB, but come on.... Imagine what someone would say if they could have looked into today's world from 5 years ago. They were peaking at 1.8-2.0 back then.

It's not always about performance, a lot of it has to do with simply how the numbers look from the outside.

KindredMAC
Jul 16, 2007, 11:03 AM
Okay, okay, here it comes.... drumroll please!







...will this fit in an iPhone ? :o



........sorry, couldn't help it, I'd seen this kind of nonsense in so many of our threads here in the past, I thought it was becoming a cult of it's own.


SURE CAN!!!!

As long as you don't mind the fact that making a phone call will be the same as putting a hot iron against your face!
;)

cliffjumper68
Jul 16, 2007, 11:03 AM
What does the "Extreme" mean? Is it just some arbitrary marketing that means "fast and cool so you want to buy it!"? Or does it actually reflect some type of change on the chip...

The extreme chips allow for manual over-clocking of the cpu core. They also usually run hotter and are less stable as a result of forcing the chip to the "extreme" of what it is capable of. I have played with a few of the extreme processors over the years, and they are faster, but in my experience far less stable. I would prefer that apple stay with more stable and reliable chips that operate well within there performance range.

longofest
Jul 16, 2007, 11:04 AM
Probaby not, it'll get too hot and require too much power :(

You know... I was thinking that they wouldn't be able to fit the top of the line 3 GHz Xeons in the 1U XServe when they were released, but they did. Apple tends to surprise us.

That being said, it still would surprise me if this caliber of chip landed in an ultraportable. Definitely in a 17" and/or 15" though, or iMac.

MLeepson
Jul 16, 2007, 11:05 AM
SURE CAN!!!!

As long as you don't mind the fact that making a phone call will be the same as putting a hot iron against your face!
;)

You could use Apple's bluetooth headset. :p

WildPalms
Jul 16, 2007, 11:05 AM
More awesme chips are on the way... Intel-August here we come!

cliffjumper68
Jul 16, 2007, 11:07 AM
I too am getting tired of a weak mobile chip in an iMac.

Apple should layout the line with the following:

Dual Core mobile chip:
MacBook
MacBook Pro

Quad Core mobile or desktop chip:
iMac

Dual Quad Core desktop chips:
Mac Pro

Also, how is it that everyone is happy with Intel releasing chips with max speeds that are at the same number as 3 years ago? This chipset maxes out at 2.6??? I know that they are doing more with these chips by making them multi-cored and tweaking the FSB, but come on.... Imagine what someone would say if they could have looked into today's world from 5 years ago. They were peaking at 1.8-2.0 back then.

It's not always about performance, a lot of it has to do with simply how the numbers look from the outside.

With fewer bottle necks, less CPU cycles, and higher bus, and interface bandwidths these chips are far faster than chips from 5 years ago. A good analogy would be a lawnmower engine versus a truck engine. They may both operate at 4500 RPM (revolutions per minute) but you will achive far more power and flow through in the truck engine even though the engines turn at the same speed.

EagerDragon
Jul 16, 2007, 11:08 AM
My thought was maybe that these will go into the MBPs and then the current SR processors will enter the MacBook. Thoughts on that?

I do not think that Apple uses any of the extreme chips (too hot), so I think it is unlikely.

Maybe in iMac.

eizzumdm
Jul 16, 2007, 11:08 AM
The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 quad-core processor would be even cooler if it had a 1337 MHz system bus. ;)

roland.g
Jul 16, 2007, 11:10 AM
I'd really like to see the 2.6 extreme go into the new iMacs. At the slight power consumption increase, that shouldn't mean much to a desktop or much in the way of heat. It would be nice to see these in 24" iMacs, at least as a BTO option, only problem is that if they are not pin-compatible to the SR C2Ds, then they can't offer 2.2 base and 2.4, 2.6 options. However, if they can ideally we would see:

20"iMac
2.2Ghz SR maybe with 2.4 option

24"iMac
2.4Ghz SR with 2.6Ghz Extreme option

and don't hold your breath, but a
27"iMac
same 2.4Ghz SR with 2.6Ghz Extreme options would be awesome.

Antares
Jul 16, 2007, 11:11 AM
i think its too much power

I don't care what the question is...the answer is More Power!

Can I have one of these in my new iMac please?

If iMacs were released with this chip, then your new iMac would obsolete as it has the older chip. :D But are you asking if this would be swapable with the older SR chip? I'm actually wondering the same thing. Is this new chip pin compatible? How about with Core 2 Duos and Core Duos?

EagerDragon
Jul 16, 2007, 11:11 AM
both. Its a marketing term that Intel has used on its desktop line, and is now using on the high-end of mobile line. There is some hardware distinction, mainly the higher clock speed and the ability to overclock.

And a large markup to make sure that buyers feel special.

cliffjumper68
Jul 16, 2007, 11:12 AM
I'd really like to see the 2.6 extreme go into the new iMacs. At the slight power consumption increase, that shouldn't mean much to a desktop or much in the way of heat. It would be nice to see these in 24" iMacs, at least as a BTO option, only problem is that if they are not pin-compatible to the SR C2Ds, then they can't offer 2.2 base and 2.4, 2.6 options. However, if they can ideally we would see:

20"iMac
2.2Ghz SR maybe with 2.4 option

24"iMac
2.4Ghz SR with 2.6Ghz Extreme option

and don't hold your breath, but a
27"iMac
same 2.4Ghz SR with 2.6Ghz Extreme options would be awesome.

A 27" iMac would be awesome!!!!

EagerDragon
Jul 16, 2007, 11:15 AM
Can I have one of these in my new iMac please?

<shakes Magic 8 ball and reads:> "Signs point to yes".

NtotheIzoo
Jul 16, 2007, 11:17 AM
With fewer bottle necks, less CPU cycles, and higher bus, and interface bandwidths these chips are far faster than chips from 5 years ago. A good analogy would be a lawnmower engine versus a truck engine. They may both operate at 4500 RPM (revolutions per minute) but you will achive far more power and flow through in the truck engine even though the engines turn at the same speed.

that's a great analogy...

WeaselMaster
Jul 16, 2007, 11:19 AM
I believe you meant Eke, as in 'to squeeze a bit more out of',
not Eek as in 'oh my god, a mouse!'

Clive At Five
Jul 16, 2007, 11:20 AM
you might count them in the new iMacs if they're not already in production

Eh, being in production wouldn't have stopped Apple from using tomorrow's chips for tomorrow's iMacs. I'm pretty certain manufacturers (Intel) allow their customers (Apple) to build systems with their new chips pre-announcement as long as they don't release the unit. Of course the 3GHz BTO Mac Pro is an exception... Released before the chip was.

The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 quad-core processor would be even cooler if it had a 1337 MHz system bus. ;)

HAH! That's gotta be the one-liner of the day.

-Clive

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 11:20 AM
What does the "Extreme" mean? Is it just some arbitrary marketing that means "fast and cool so you want to buy it!"? Or does it actually reflect some type of change on the chip...Extreme reflects the high end of Intel's processors. These are designed for enthusiasts and have the highest clock speeds and unlocked multipliers (easy overclocking).

Can I have one of these in my new iMac please?$$$$$$

The X7800 has been in the Merom (http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom) guide for ages.

WannaGoMac
Jul 16, 2007, 11:22 AM
And will Apple even think about lowering their prices to reflect this savings. haha, ya right.

When will Apple join the rest of the computer industry and have their prices change as the costs change?

wheezy
Jul 16, 2007, 11:24 AM
Isn't it odd that these chips are announced as a new iMac style etc are in the works? Why not put the new Extreme Quad Core in the new iMac. Hence the new design, and I'm sure Apple had advance notice of the chips, so they could have started to design around them months ago. Chips are ready, new iMac with Quad Core right behind it....

Clive At Five
Jul 16, 2007, 11:28 AM
If iMacs were released with this chip, then your new iMac would obsolete as it has the older chip. :D But are you asking if this would be swapable with the older SR chip? I'm actually wondering the same thing. Is this new chip pin compatible? How about with Core 2 Duos and Core Duos?

I'm pretty sure Merom is not pin-to-pin compatible with Conroe. A new iMac would thus require a new Mo-board to use Conroe... as it would anyway to support all the steaming new FSB speed improvements. Is it wrong of me to be excited about the FSB? I think everyone could use a little more FSB speed...

-Clive

billystlyes
Jul 16, 2007, 11:31 AM
Intel also announced a new desktop processor today, however the announcement does not look to have much bearing on the Apple community, as Apple has continually eschewed Intel's Desktop products in favor of Intel's less power hungry mobile products or more powerful workstation/server Xeons.

And that's a shame, because they are faster and cost less!

Clive At Five
Jul 16, 2007, 11:31 AM
A 27" iMac would be awesome!!!!

...and would be a bitch to carry around if they decided to make it a convertable (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3896175#post3896175)...

-Clive

Peace
Jul 16, 2007, 11:31 AM
The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 quad-core processor would be even cooler if it had a 1337 MHz system bus. ;)

Unless this chip uses at least a 800Mhz FSB this won't be in the iMac.

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 11:35 AM
Unless this chip uses at least a 800Mhz FSB this won't be in the iMac.Overclock the front side bus to 333 MHz.

Conroe (Desktop) 1066-1333 MHz
Merom (Mobile) 667-800 MHz

mathwhiz90601
Jul 16, 2007, 11:37 AM
New Macbooks, MacBook Pros and iMacs next Tuesday! And Safari feels snappier!

Not this week tuesday (ie tommorrow - July 17th) but next tuesday. Leaves a little more time between them and the iPhone and gives Steve time to make a Stevenote (Vote for 24th.)

i think its too much power

There is no such thing as too much power. It'd probably be less power than you already have anyway:

Mac Pro; 2x2.66Ghz Xeons; 4GB Ram; X1900XT; 1TB of Storage

It would be great for apple to start using some of Intel's desktop chips.

I am sick of laptop chips in Imacs. Yes they may be ok enough for Mac Minis, but Apple needs to offer up a mid sized tower or imac that has more power than a laptop.

To hold back on power just so they have a small form is very annoying.

Also, this chip would be a mobile chip, so i wouldn't believe they would hold back, instead probably offer it as an option on their highest end macbook pro's.

Apple, cmon, please offer desktop extreme chips in a mid sized upgradable tower!!

I think they have to use laptop chips to cut on heat. They'd be able to fit more stuff in there if they have LED backlighting in the new iMac's since less power of LED = less heat.

Can I have one of these in my new iMac please?

You mean one you already own?


Also, how is it that everyone is happy with Intel releasing chips with max speeds that are at the same number as 3 years ago? This chipset maxes out at 2.6??? I know that they are doing more with these chips by making them multi-cored and tweaking the FSB, but come on.... Imagine what someone would say if they could have looked into today's world from 5 years ago. They were peaking at 1.8-2.0 back then.

Back then, Intel designed their chips to have higher clock speeds to make their chips look more powerful to the public, even though clockspeed isn't everything. The new ones have vastly superior architechtures (and multiple cores) and are therefore much better.

It's not always about performance, a lot of it has to do with simply how the numbers look from the outside.

Intel tried to adhere to that, but they ended up making chips that performed worse with very high clockspeeds in order to fool the populace with the "megahertz myth".

I do not think that Apple uses any of the extreme chips (too hot), so I think it is unlikely.

Maybe in iMac.

I agree. The iMac is most probably going to see this chip. Mac Mini, dunno. I bet on SR C2D; it sounds reasonable for the price point.

I'd really like to see the 2.6 extreme go into the new iMacs. At the slight power consumption increase, that shouldn't mean much to a desktop or much in the way of heat. It would be nice to see these in 24" iMacs, at least as a BTO option, only problem is that if they are not pin-compatible to the SR C2Ds, then they can't offer 2.2 base and 2.4, 2.6 options. However, if they can ideally we would see:

20"iMac
2.2Ghz SR maybe with 2.4 option

24"iMac
2.4Ghz SR with 2.6Ghz Extreme option

and don't hold your breath, but a
27"iMac
same 2.4Ghz SR with 2.6Ghz Extreme options would be awesome.

The iMac is totally getting these chips :D Don't think there'll be a 27" model... 2 screen sizes should still be enough choice.

Eh, being in production wouldn't have stopped Apple from using tomorrow's chips for tomorrow's iMacs. I'm pretty certain manufacturers (Intel) allow their customers (Apple) to build systems with their new chips pre-announcement as long as they don't release the unit. Of course the 3GHz BTO Mac Pro is an exception... Released before the chip was.

Definitely in the new iMacs. And the chip in the Mac Pro isn't publicly available at all, anyway.

Clive At Five
Jul 16, 2007, 11:38 AM
I can't believe no one has said it yet, since this is, after all, an extreme mobile chip we're talking about...

And since someone mentioned Power... :

PowerBook G5 on Tuesday!! :D

On behalf of the MacRumors forum-members, I take the liberty of drop-kicking you across the room.

Unless this chip uses at least a 800Mhz FSB this won't be in the iMac.

I think you missed the joke...

1337MHz... instead of 1333Mhz... 1337 is hacker (h@x0r) speak for "LEET," meaning "elite." I suggest getting out more.

-Clive

commander.data
Jul 16, 2007, 11:38 AM
Unless this chip uses at least a 800Mhz FSB this won't be in the iMac.
I can't see the Merom Extreme Edition being used by Apple either. Neither the MBP or iMac given their small form factors are well suited for overclocking and they already aren't exactly cool. The Extreme Edition's only real point is overclocking and I don't think Apple wants to sanction a ticket to hardware failure. A 2.6GHz non-Extreme Merom will be released in late Q3 anyways, which is perfect time for a SR MBP refresh.

Peace
Jul 16, 2007, 11:40 AM
On behalf of the MacRumors forum-members, I take the liberty of drop-kicking you across the room.



I think you missed the joke...

1337MHz... instead of 1333Mhz... 1337 is hacker (h@x0r) speak for "LEET," meaning "elite." I suggest getting out more.

-Clive

I would get out more if my lungs weren't filled with asbestos particles.
;)

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 11:43 AM
I can't see the Merom Extreme Edition being used by Apple either. Neither the MBP or iMac given their small form factors are well suited for overclocking and they already aren't exactly cool. The Extreme Edition's only real point is overclocking and I don't think Apple wants to sanction a ticket to hardware failure. A 2.6GHz non-Extreme Merom will be released in late Q3 anyways, which is perfect time for a SR MBP refresh.I can see it being offered for the extra 200 MHz but I don't see the overclocking features being enabled in EFI.

Clive At Five
Jul 16, 2007, 11:45 AM
I would get out more if my lungs weren't filled with asbestos particles.
;)

aha. Touche.

Nah, really, I don't blame you for not knowing about 1337. I just assumed that we're all geeks here... Typical geeks respond jovially to the utterings of "1337."

-Clive

Raidersmojo
Jul 16, 2007, 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace
Unless this chip uses at least a 800Mhz FSB this won't be in the iMac.
I think you missed the joke...

1337MHz... instead of 1333Mhz... 1337 is hacker (h@x0r) speak for "LEET," meaning "elite." I suggest getting out more.

-Clive


actually I'd suggest YOU get out more ;):p

longofest
Jul 16, 2007, 11:45 AM
Unless this chip uses at least a 800Mhz FSB this won't be in the iMac.

It does indeed have a 800 MHz FSB.

Glassman
Jul 16, 2007, 11:46 AM
I can't see why most of you seem to be mad about having the fastest clocked cpu there is.. what difference do you think such a slight increase in clock frequency can produce, all things being equal.. you won't even notice unless you benchmark it.. now look at the price difference - far more than the performance difference.. also look at the power consumption & heat.. the Extreme lineup is meant for overclockers, not general public, which is exactly where Apple stands.. don't tell me you expect Apple to enter enthusiast business and offer advanced overclocking support in BIOS, ehm, EFI and let customers mess with their computers? clearly, Apple made a choice to go with mobile processors for iMacs, because performace is fairly 'nuff for majority of potencial users and it's oh so easier to design the machines.. for those who seek power there is Mac Pro.. you decide..

ts1973
Jul 16, 2007, 11:48 AM
Intel also announced a new desktop processor today, however the announcement does not look to have much bearing on the Apple community, as Apple has continually eschewed Intel's Desktop products in favor of Intel's less power hungry mobile products or more powerful workstation/server Xeons.

There's nothing more powerful about the Xeon S771 chips. they're exactly the same as the Kentsfield S775 chips, but with a (slightly) different pin layout.

Apple had better used the new Kentsfield GO stepping chips : they're far more energy efficient than the previous stepping. Then again : Penryn is just around the corner and will improve things even more on the Performance per Watt scale.

gnasher729
Jul 16, 2007, 11:50 AM
What does the "Extreme" mean? Is it just some arbitrary marketing that means "fast and cool so you want to buy it!"? Or does it actually reflect some type of change on the chip...

"Extreme" is an existing chip, at extreme speed, and extreme price :mad:

The problem is that at the top end, getting a bit more clock speed gets very expensive. Getting an "extreme" dual core processor seems a bit stupid, because a low-end quad core processor would be cheaper and much faster.

We'll see what the next generation iMacs will look like. Apple can try to design them flatter, with less of a "chin". But that means less cooling and therefore laptop chips. On the other hand, they can keep the current thickness, and the 24 inch model at least should be able to handle a quad core chip at low clock rate.

QCassidy352
Jul 16, 2007, 11:54 AM
please let this be the piece that apple was waiting for to make the new imacs. Ten months is really quite enough of the current models.

Mainyehc
Jul 16, 2007, 12:05 PM
On behalf of the MacRumors forum-members, I take the liberty of drop-kicking you across the room.


Oh, no biggie, be my guest, I can take it, as any good ol' MacBook would. Isn't that what sudden-motion sensors and MagSafe connectors were invented for? :p

But serioulsy, an overclockable mobile CPU? It makes you wonder... If you did that to a MacBook, wouldn't you end up with something akin to a hipothetical PB G5 and burn a hole through the table or ( :eek: ) your legs? Or even worse, burn the MacBook itself! :D

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 12:07 PM
Oh, no biggie, be my guest, I can take it, as any good ol' MacBook would. Isn't that what sudden-motion sensors and MagSafe connectors were invented for? :p

But serioulsy, an overclockable mobile CPU? It makes you wonder... If you did that to a MacBook, wouldn't you end up with something akin to a hipothetical PB G5 and burn a hole through the table or ( :eek: ) your legs? :cool:Intel's trying to cash in on people with money to burn. The 800 MHz FSB is the biggest issue with Merom.

pcorajr
Jul 16, 2007, 12:12 PM
Also, how is it that everyone is happy with Intel releasing chips with max speeds that are at the same number as 3 years ago? This chipset maxes out at 2.6??? I know that they are doing more with these chips by making them multi-cored and tweaking the FSB, but come on.... Imagine what someone would say if they could have looked into today's world from 5 years ago. They were peaking at 1.8-2.0 back then.

It's not always about performance, a lot of it has to do with simply how the numbers look from the outside.

The Ghz war is over, Now we have the Core war. I rather have my Apps using multiple cores at 2.6 and still have 2 cores left for multitasking. Multiple cores is the way to go. We just need developers to stop been lazy and start developing for multi core platforms.

StuPidQPid
Jul 16, 2007, 12:12 PM
What does the "Extreme" mean? Is it just some arbitrary marketing that means "fast and cool so you want to buy it!"? Or does it actually reflect some type of change on the chip...

It means it's a warm-blooded mammal that lays eggs...;)

shabbasuraj
Jul 16, 2007, 12:13 PM
This Extreme advertising/branding is so yesterday... Intel really has to call it something else.. so dumb!!!!!!!!!!!!...EXTREME..

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=xtreme_********

MrCrowbar
Jul 16, 2007, 12:17 PM
I don't think we'll see those chips in any of the consumer Macs.

They're:
- too expensive (almost a grand per chip)
- too hot ("performance oer watt", remember?)

Ergo you'd have an iMac that is twice as loud as the current one.
Or a Macbook pro that will melt the keyboard when it's idling.
For Mac Pros, those things are too weak (laptop CPU...) and too expensive.

The only Mac I could possibly imagine those extreme chips would be a gaming Mac (gMac?). Most games are still not well optimized for multiple cores, usually the run loop (1 thread) takes up a core and the other things like AI, sound, physics, networking etc. are seperate threads that can run on the other core. So high performance per core is still the key here.

It would be like the cube; a small box with easy access to the CPU, RAM, 2 hard drive bays (striping per default) and a superdrive. I'd love to see the revival of the cube but with gamers as a target group. Any of the NVidia 8800 series would do.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 16, 2007, 12:18 PM
And will Apple even think about lowering their prices to reflect this savings. haha, ya right.

When will Apple join the rest of the computer industry and have their prices change as the costs change?

Give it a few weeks. Yeesh!

Isn't it odd that these chips are announced as a new iMac style etc are in the works? Why not put the new Extreme Quad Core in the new iMac. Hence the new design, and I'm sure Apple had advance notice of the chips, so they could have started to design around them months ago. Chips are ready, new iMac with Quad Core right behind it....

The iMac's are going to have something nice, I'm sure.

gloss
Jul 16, 2007, 12:24 PM
The problem is that at the top end, getting a bit more clock speed gets very expensive. Getting an "extreme" dual core processor seems a bit stupid, because a low-end quad core processor would be cheaper and much faster.

This chip is a 3.0ghz quad-core. So it's the fastest clock speed and the most cores they offer.

edit: Oops. Total mistake. I confused this with the desktop variant they just released. Sorry.

spetznatz
Jul 16, 2007, 12:28 PM
Confused old hack needs clarification...

QX6850 -- 3.0 GHz, Quad-core and 1333 MHz FSB -- these are the same numbers for the top-of-the-line Xeon chips...so what are the differences / advantages of the Xeons?

Is the QX6850 cheaper? (it certainly uses cheaper memory than the FB-DIMMs required by the Xeon...)

derivativemusic
Jul 16, 2007, 12:30 PM
Or can you eke more power out of it?

Counter
Jul 16, 2007, 12:31 PM
Okay, okay, here it comes.... drumroll please!







...will this fit in an iPhone ? :o

Depends how big the iPhone 2.0 is. ;)

gloss
Jul 16, 2007, 12:31 PM
Confused old hack needs clarification...

QX6850 -- 3.0 GHz, Quad-core and 1333 MHz FSB -- these are the same numbers for the top-of-the-line Xeon chips...so what are the differences / advantages of the Xeons?

Is the QX6850 cheaper? (it certainly uses cheaper memory than the FB-DIMMs required by the Xeon...)

The Extreme is on a different PIN architecture, doesn't require buffered memory, and is easily overclockable. I think that's mainly it.

Essentially, it's the power-consumer variant.

fblack
Jul 16, 2007, 12:33 PM
Yeah, but in what? A headless 'Mac Midi' would be great but where would that sit with iMacs and MacPros?

It would sit quite well on my desktop. :)

Yankees 4 Life
Jul 16, 2007, 12:35 PM
should be very interesting how they are able to use this for 17" macbook pros

daneoni
Jul 16, 2007, 12:37 PM
I think it makes sense for the 2.6GHz chips to go in upcoming 20/24 inch iMacs i.e 2.4 in 20" upgradeable to 2.6 and 2.6 standard in the 24". Hence each product lines is sufficiently separated. MacBooks 2.16, MacBook Pros 2.4 and iMacs 2.6....even fits since they are scrapping the 17" model. Mac mini might get bumped into 2.16 Core Duo or 2.0 C2D

Finally towers maintain their xeon processors.

Sooo, 2.6GHz 20/24 aluminium imacs anyone?

Peace
Jul 16, 2007, 12:47 PM
It does indeed have a 800 MHz FSB.

ahh..I thought it was just a faster chip.didn't know it came with a faster bus.

Still though.With a complete re-design of the iMac I can see non-mobile chips in the new iMac.

pcorajr
Jul 16, 2007, 12:56 PM
This is great news, Lets hope that this translate into new iMac Soon.

shawmanus
Jul 16, 2007, 01:05 PM
Key point about Extreme Edition Processors is that they have unlocked multipliers. So one can increase clockspeed without increasing FSB.

X7800 can have upto 15x mulitplier. So one could have a 3ghz dual core laptop.

These cpus are targetted at Desktop replacement(DTR) market. I cant see Apple using them unless they decide to use it for iMac.

Intel would be releasing T7800 in sep/oct (they would also be releasing 2.8ghz x7900 as well). Apple might use that for Macbook(pro)

Headrush69
Jul 16, 2007, 01:22 PM
It would be great for apple to start using some of Intel's desktop chips.

I am sick of laptop chips in Imacs. Yes they may be ok enough for Mac Minis, but Apple needs to offer up a mid sized tower or imac that has more power than a laptop.

The problem is Apple needs a system that fits between the iMac and the Mac Pro.

The current iMac line up is perfectly fine for your "average" user.
(Using mobile parts isn't going to matter to mom and pop.)

Unfortunately there is a large group of users that need a little more power or maybe a better video card or a decent system for users that have a LCD already, and the Mac Pro is priced too high for this group.

lazyrighteye
Jul 16, 2007, 01:25 PM
SURE CAN!!!!

As long as you don't mind the fact that making a phone call will be the same as putting a hot iron against your face!
;)

OT, but speaking of heat - I was looking (feeling) an :apple:TV yesterday in an Apple Store, and that thing was hot, hot hot!
I actually laughed out loud. Shockingly hot. I bet you could quickly cook an egg on an :apple:TV.
Seems to me, having never used one more than in a demo setting, that the intense amount of heat these babies put off, there would be all sorts of performance issues. I always thought Macs (computers) didn't like extreme temps.

Anyway, back on topic, I expect these chips to find their way in the new iMacs.

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 01:30 PM
The Ghz war is over, Now we have the Core war. I rather have my Apps using multiple cores at 2.6 and still have 2 cores left for multitasking. Multiple cores is the way to go. We just need developers to stop been lazy and start developing for multi core platforms.Actually the GHz war is still going. You're going to hit a wall trying to code so many parallel operations at once in order to improve speed. Then you still have to fall back on raw clock speed alone. Penryn isn't that great of a change when compared to Core 2, you do get higher and cooler clock speeds moving to 45nm.

I don't think we'll see those chips in any of the consumer Macs.

They're:
- too expensive (almost a grand per chip)
- too hot ("performance oer watt", remember?)

Ergo you'd have an iMac that is twice as loud as the current one.
Or a Macbook pro that will melt the keyboard when it's idling.
For Mac Pros, those things are too weak (laptop CPU...) and too expensive.

The only Mac I could possibly imagine those extreme chips would be a gaming Mac (gMac?). Most games are still not well optimized for multiple cores, usually the run loop (1 thread) takes up a core and the other things like AI, sound, physics, networking etc. are seperate threads that can run on the other core. So high performance per core is still the key here.

It would be like the cube; a small box with easy access to the CPU, RAM, 2 hard drive bays (striping per default) and a superdrive. I'd love to see the revival of the cube but with gamers as a target group. Any of the NVidia 8800 series would do.$637 for the T7600, $529 for the T7700, and then $851 for the X7800. I can picture Apple offering it as a custom option but not as stock.

The 44w TDP isn't that scary compared to the old PowerPC 970FX at full load.

oscuh
Jul 16, 2007, 01:34 PM
I'd only be impressed if they called it XTREME!!!

theheyes
Jul 16, 2007, 01:41 PM
Ahem. Sorry...

... are we talking about Extreme Edition cpus in an iMac? :confused:

I'll eat my own socks when I see it. Its just wrong on so many levels.

Object-X
Jul 16, 2007, 01:49 PM
You mean one you already own?


No, the one I'm going to buy when rumor becomes reality. :)

diamond.g
Jul 16, 2007, 01:52 PM
Actually the GHz war is still going. You're going to hit a wall trying to code so many parallel operations at once in order to improve speed. Then you still have to fall back on raw clock speed alone. Penryn isn't that great of a change when compared to Core 2, you do get higher and cooler clock speeds moving to 45nm.

$637 for the T7600, $529 for the T7700, and then $851 for the X7800. I can picture Apple offering it as a custom option but not as stock.

The 44w TDP isn't that scary compared to the old PowerPC 970FX at full load.

Do you think Apple will offer factory overclocked systems?

Object-X
Jul 16, 2007, 01:53 PM
<shakes Magic 8 ball and reads:> "Signs point to yes".

Does the Magic 8 ball say I'm getting Blu-Ray with that too? And how about a 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 7950 GTX?

Please please please say yes!

Dustman
Jul 16, 2007, 01:58 PM
Okay, I gotta say something because it hurts reading it every 2 minutes in every imac related thread. People seem to forget that the last rev. iMac G5 chugged along just fine with an insanely hot (hotter than an old dusty pentium 4) processor, so, really there is no reason at all for apple to be using laptop chips in the iMac, other than it's one less thing to order for them. And desktop /laptop chips are the same speed, just cost different.

I personally would think that if apple did make a mid range tower, that it could possibly include an overclockable chip. :) one can dream....

Cheffy Dave
Jul 16, 2007, 02:01 PM
:cool:My thought was maybe that these will go into the MBPs and then the current SR processors will enter the MacBook. Thoughts on that?

Now that's interesting speculation!!!!!!;)

Clive At Five
Jul 16, 2007, 02:03 PM
Do you think Apple will offer factory overclocked systems?

Like the water-cooled PowerMacs of yore? (oh, you doubt, but just stop and think about it...)

Seeing as how Apple is no longer battilling with a broken 3GHz promise and really lack-luster hardware upgrades anymore... I'm leaning towards no.

The Intel switch really eliminated their liability by putting them on par with the rest of the PC industry. They have no need to show off what they don't have anymore.

-Clive

Cheffy Dave
Jul 16, 2007, 02:04 PM
What does the "Extreme" mean? Is it just some arbitrary marketing that means "fast and cool so you want to buy it!"? Or does it actually reflect some type of change on the chip...

super fast, like in AMD's FX chips, only faster:apple::D

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 02:04 PM
Do you think Apple will offer factory overclocked systems?I never said they would overclock. The X7800 just offers them a BTO for an even faster machine.

http://www.math.purdue.edu/~abarreno/overclock.jpg

But hey...

Cheffy Dave
Jul 16, 2007, 02:11 PM
The extreme chips allow for manual over-clocking of the cpu core. They also usually run hotter and are less stable as a result of forcing the chip to the "extreme" of what it is capable of. I have played with a few of the extreme processors over the years, and they are faster, but in my experience far less stable. I would prefer that apple stay with more stable and reliable chips that operate well within there performance range.

:cool:, believe me, just as in the AMD FX chips, stability isn't an issue with these chips. As a PC guy, looking to buy my first MAC, They will run hot, but they'll be stable, at least with mild to moderate OC'ing. Apple won't OC, so no prob

Cheezex
Jul 16, 2007, 02:11 PM
Ugh, I hope Apple puts some seriously good hardware in iMacs. I'm tired of my PC friends bragging about their cheap and easily overclocked 3.8GHz Core 2 Duo boxes.

Clive At Five
Jul 16, 2007, 02:13 PM
Okay, I gotta say something because it hurts reading it every 2 minutes in every imac related thread. People seem to forget that the last rev. iMac G5 chugged along just fine with an insanely hot (hotter than an old dusty pentium 4) processor, so, really there is no reason at all for apple to be using laptop chips in the iMac, other than it's one less thing to order for them.

Agreed on the hot-running G5 part. As I've said many times, part of what made the iMac so amazing wasn't just its creative design, but also this it had power. It was always just one step behind the PowerMac... Now it's three.

And desktop /laptop chips are the same speed, just cost different.

Untrue. Merom and Conroe may have the same clock speeds, but Conroe has better performance.

I personally would think that if apple did make a mid range tower, that it could possibly include an overclockable chip. :) one can dream....

Join the leagues of us who have been saying this for months...

The sad part, though, is that if they stuff a Conroe chip in the iMac, they'll use the excuse that the top model iMac is close enough to the Mac Pro so that there won't be the huge performance gap that there is today.

Besides, face it: a mid-range tower cuts into sales of Mac Pros ($$$) and iMacs (bundled displays ($$$)). Either way, it eats profits. Not many people would buy a mid-tower and an Apple Display, I feel.

-Clive

Cheffy Dave
Jul 16, 2007, 02:15 PM
:DI'm pretty sure Merom is not pin-to-pin compatible with Conroe. A new iMac would thus require a new Mo-board to use Conroe... as it would anyway to support all the steaming new FSB speed improvements. Is it wrong of me to be excited about the FSB? I think everyone could use a little more FSB speed...

-Clive

You'd be correct Sir!

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 02:16 PM
Untrue. Merom and Conroe may have the same clock speeds, but Conroe has better performance.Actually, at the same clock speed performance is about the same between mobile, desktop, and server. The difference are that you'll get a fewer amount of chips per batch to be used a mobile chips. (Hence the higher costs.) The same process is used to create both chips. Some just can cut it at 35w TDP. Don't forget the lower FSB keeps things cooler too.

commander.data
Jul 16, 2007, 02:44 PM
The Extreme is on a different PIN architecture, doesn't require buffered memory, and is easily overclockable. I think that's mainly it.

Essentially, it's the power-consumer variant.
Xeons in general also undergo extra validation, since they are targetted at workstations and servers, which means they should be more stable and are less likely to fail. The Xeon DPs that Apple uses are of course also validated for dual processor use.

Multimedia
Jul 16, 2007, 02:45 PM
the first mobile "Extreme" branded processor, the X7800, clocked at 2.6 GHzI'm thinking perhaps this will go only into the next 17" MBP as a build to order option since the 17" has enough room inside to keep it cool enough to avoid melting the case.Intel also announced a new desktop processor today (Core 2 Extreme QX6850 quad-core), however the announcement does not look to have much bearing on the Apple community, as Apple has continually eschewed Intel's Desktop products in favor of Intel's less power hungry mobile products or more powerful workstation/server Xeons.

For interest, the newly announced Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 quad-core processor clocks in at 3.0GHz with a new, faster 1333 MHz system bus.This seems like a candidate for the next redesigned for better cooling top of the line iMacs in August. Meanwhile the Mac Pros can go all 8 core since Clovertown prices will be slashed radically at the end of July. This would make the whole line very powerful and ready to take on whatever additional power Leopard would like to have in October.

diamond.g
Jul 16, 2007, 02:50 PM
I'm thinking perhaps this will go only into the next 17" MBP as a build to order option since the 17" has enough room inside to keep it cool enough to avoid melting the case.This seems like a candidate for the next redesigned for better cooling top of the line iMacs in August. Meanwhile the Mac Pros can go all 8 core since Clovertown prices will be slashed radically at the end of July. This would make the whole line very powerful and ready to take on whatever additional power Leopard would like to have in October.

From my understanding pretty much all of Intel's Core processors can hit 3+ghz on Air with little to no voltage bumping. I would imagine if that is true that we could see Apple actually offer faster "factory overclocked" options. I just don't see Apple giving us the ability to set the clockspeed ourselves. Besides where would we do that at (noting that there is no hit del for bios type option during bootup)?

Bye Bye Baby
Jul 16, 2007, 03:20 PM
Doesn't anyone just long for the good old days when the only thing that you had to know about processors was that the next revision that was going to show up in a mac after about three years was going to 1.33 ghz instead of 1.2?:confused:
I have been reading all the threads and I didn't follow one bloody word of what was said!:p
So in synthesis- all this hype and there isn't the slightest chance that these new processors will end up in a Mac! I think that's about right!

So, when does Penryn get off its backside and make an appearance?

twoodcc
Jul 16, 2007, 03:30 PM
sounds good. hopefully we'll see this in an apple computer soon

k2k koos
Jul 16, 2007, 03:34 PM
SURE CAN!!!!

As long as you don't mind the fact that making a phone call will be the same as putting a hot iron against your face!
;)


ah, you are forgetting about bluetooth hands free devices, it's more like burning a hole in your pocket, then again, the creditcard that I'll use to buy one of those things is doing the same at the moment :-)

k2k koos
Jul 16, 2007, 03:40 PM
please let this be the piece that apple was waiting for to make the new imacs. Ten months is really quite enough of the current models.

Let's not forget that the case used on the current model, has been around much longer than that, I know it got a little sleeker, but basically it is still very much based on the original G5 iMac. Something new, would be appreciated. Having said that, the same goes for the Mac Pro, and Macbook Pro casings, having been around in nearly unaltered forms since the G5 introduction, and the Alu case respectively on the G4 PB models. come on Johny Ive and co!
:apple:

BenRoethig
Jul 16, 2007, 04:56 PM
Neither of these chips will make it in a machine running OSX unless Apple either expands their lineup or licenses the operating system. They have entry in either the high end desktop or desktop replacement segments.

offwidafairies
Jul 16, 2007, 05:06 PM
:D This is really exciting. I've been holding off buying a MBP til Leopard comes out. I'd love another update before then :D

reflex
Jul 16, 2007, 05:23 PM
The problem is that at the top end, getting a bit more clock speed gets very expensive. Getting an "extreme" dual core processor seems a bit stupid, because a low-end quad core processor would be cheaper and much faster.

Depends on what you're doing.

Most of the time 3 of the 4 cores in my computer's cpu do more or less nothing. But that one core will benefit from as much clock speed as it can get.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 16, 2007, 06:15 PM
Actually the GHz war is still going. You're going to hit a wall trying to code so many parallel operations at once in order to improve speed. Then you still have to fall back on raw clock speed alone. Penryn isn't that great of a change when compared to Core 2, you do get higher and cooler clock speeds moving to 45nm.

Yeah, but even if your code isn't optimized for multi-core, it doesn't have to share its one core with, say, system background processes running on the other core. Still an improvement.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 16, 2007, 06:19 PM
Ugh, I hope Apple puts some seriously good hardware in iMacs. I'm tired of my PC friends bragging about their cheap and easily overclocked 3.8GHz Core 2 Duo boxes.

Are they liquid-helium cooled?

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 06:21 PM
Yeah, but even if your code isn't optimized for multi-core, it doesn't have to share its one core with, say, system background processes running on the other core. Still an improvement.Then you're still going to want raw clock speed for that single threaded application.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 16, 2007, 07:04 PM
Doesn't anyone just long for the good old days when the only thing that you had to know about processors was that the next revision that was going to show up in a mac after about three years was going to 1.33 ghz instead of 1.2?:confused:
I have been reading all the threads and I didn't follow one bloody word of what was said!:p
So in synthesis- all this hype and there isn't the slightest chance that these new processors will end up in a Mac! I think that's about right!

So, when does Penryn get off its backside and make an appearance?

2008.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 16, 2007, 11:10 PM
Confused old hack needs clarification...

QX6850 -- 3.0 GHz, Quad-core and 1333 MHz FSB -- these are the same numbers for the top-of-the-line Xeon chips...so what are the differences / advantages of the Xeons?

Is the QX6850 cheaper? (it certainly uses cheaper memory than the FB-DIMMs required by the Xeon...)

I think the Xeons are equipped to work with more than one physical CPU, like in the Mac Pros. Not seeing Xeons in iMacs.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 16, 2007, 11:17 PM
Then you're still going to want raw clock speed for that single threaded application.

But it would still be superior to a single core w/the same clock speed. I estimate 1.5x - 3x faster depending on relative sizes of the operating system and target app.

Eidorian
Jul 16, 2007, 11:21 PM
But it would still be superior to a single core w/the same clock speed. I estimate 1.5x - 3x faster depending on relative sizes of the operating system and target app.A single threaded application would still hit only one logical unit at 100% maximum. I understand that you'd have additional ones free for other operations. Clock speed still matters even in the multi-core age. You can only parallelize so many operations until you're left stalled by the slowest one.

AidenShaw
Jul 16, 2007, 11:58 PM
I think the Xeons are equipped to work with more than one physical CPU, like in the Mac Pros. Not seeing Xeons in iMacs.

Since each core is logically a CPU or a processor (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck), it is simpler and clearer to refer to "sockets" for the physical count. An Octo MacPro is 8 CPUs, 8 cores, 8 processors and 2 sockets.

Xeons are Core 2 architecture chips that are capable of running with multiple sockets - two sockets for the version in the MacPro, an 4-way and higher are possible with other Xeon chips and chipsets.

The "Core 2" chips are single-socket only - they don't have the logic and pins to do memory and cache coherency across multiple sockets. "Merom" and "Conroe" are the codenames for the mobile and desktop single-socket "Core 2" chips.

Useless Eater
Jul 17, 2007, 12:10 AM
Not this week tuesday (ie tommorrow - July 17th) but next tuesday. Leaves a little more time between them and the iPhone and gives Steve time to make a Stevenote (Vote for 24th.)I've been waiting to buy a new iMac till the new ones come out.

How many of you think mathwhiz is on the mark with his guess?

Butthead
Jul 17, 2007, 12:25 AM
Since each core is logically a CPU or a processor (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck), it is simpler and clearer to refer to "sockets" for the physical count. An Octo MacPro is 8 CPUs, 8 cores, 8 processors and 2 sockets.

Xeons are Core 2 architecture chips that are capable of running with multiple sockets - two sockets for the version in the MacPro, an 4-way and higher are possible with other Xeon chips and chipsets.

The "Core 2" chips are single-socket only - they don't have the logic and pins to do memory and cache coherency across multiple sockets. "Merom" and "Conroe" are the codenames for the mobile and desktop single-socket "Core 2" chips.

Hmm, I wonder if Apple will try to use a 4core Penryn as a mobile CPU in a thin MBP, next year? Nah, Alienware will do it with a thicker/gamer high-end laptop...who are we kidding, Apple is a leader in design, not topend performance on the Intel platform as far as mobile computers is concerned.

LMFAO...again, and again, and again. MR readers for the most part seem rather comatose in their narrow reality distortion mindfield, lol


105 posts, 9k views in less than a day for this frong page thread, yet no one noticed that 'other' rumor leak.

You all were utterly a sleep all weekend long then, partying, livin large?

4 posts, <400 views, several days ago....guess what, read it and weep, just a few MR readers alive over the weekend, lol...part of the illuminati clan I think ;) ?

Merom XE(1st Core 2 Extreme confirmed)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=329528



Now, how long do ya think it will take for the X7900 front page rumor story to be posted after I post it days or weeks before anyone notices, lol? What you say, what tis this X7900, we're talkinga bout a X7800. Snoozing again? The X7800 was rumored and posted about by me, last month, to be released in July...OMG, for real??? The X7900 is rumored (as posted by me last month) to be released in Sept. @2.8Ghz, along with the standard Merom speed boost to 2.6Ghz at that time frame.

It remains to be seen if the Merom XE in Sept. (that's the X7900 again) will be priced at that lofty premium over the 2.6Ghz Merom...I kind of doubt Apple will use any XE Merom's because of price & cause the thin cases probably can't be designed with enough cooling to do it.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 17, 2007, 12:27 AM
I've been waiting to buy a new iMac till the new ones come out.

How many of you think mathwhiz is on the mark with his guess?

I do! :D

Do I get anything if I'm right to the exact day?

mathwhiz90601
Jul 17, 2007, 12:30 AM
Hmm, I wonder if Apple will try to use a 4core Penryn as a mobile CPU in a thin MBP, next year? Nah, Alienware will do it with a thicker/gamer high-end laptop...who are we kidding, Apple is a leader in design, not topend performance on the Intel platform as far as mobile computers is concerned.

LMFAO...again, and again, and again. MR readers for the most part seem rather comatose in their narrow reality distortion mindfield, lol


105 posts, 9k views in less than a day for this frong page thread, yet no one noticed that 'other' rumor leak.

You all were utterly a sleep all weekend long then, partying, livin large?

4 posts, <400 views, several days ago....guess what, read it and weep, just a few MR readers alive over the weekend, lol...part of the illuminati clan I think ;) ?

Merom XE(1st Core 2 Extreme confirmed)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=329528



Now, how long do ya think it will take for the X7900 front page rumor story to be posted after I post it days or weeks before anyone notices, lol? What you say, what tis this X7900, we're talkinga bout a X7800. Snoozing again? The X7800 was rumored and posted about by me, last month, to be released in July...OMG, for real??? The X7900 is rumored (as posted by me last month) to be released in Sept. @2.8Ghz, along with the standard Merom speed boost to 2.6Ghz at that time frame.

It remains to be seen if the Merom XE in Sept. (that's the X7900 again) will be priced at that lofty premium over the 2.6Ghz Merom...I kind of doubt Apple will use any XE Merom's because of price & cause the thin cases probably can't be designed with enough cooling to do it.

But it didn't make the MR news/rumor pages, so there was no "news discussion thread".

aLoC
Jul 17, 2007, 05:22 AM
2.6GHz iMac later today?

ahireasu
Jul 17, 2007, 06:47 AM
Hmm it seems Applestore is down :eek: go go Apple ..:D

mirffy
Jul 17, 2007, 07:04 AM
Hmm it seems Applestore is down :eek: go go Apple ..:D

I hate to disappoint you, but it seems to be up with me (store.apple.com is reachable without any problem whatsoever - for me) and no update yet.

I'm going with the 24th :D

ahireasu
Jul 17, 2007, 07:12 AM
I hate to disappoint you, but it seems to be up with me (store.apple.com is reachable without any problem whatsoever - for me) and no update yet.

I'm going with the 24th :D

Yup its back(for few mins was with the "we'll be back soon" message), oh well wishful thinking, I didn't expect anything.
If the rumours are true about new design etc. then it will be with a Boom from Steve for sure,he loves this things.:)

coffey7
Jul 17, 2007, 08:38 PM
Now with all the extra heat you really will be able to cook an egg on a macbook pro. Or you could just use it inside a cooler at 7/11.

MacinDoc
Jul 18, 2007, 12:26 AM
I hate to disappoint you, but it seems to be up with me (store.apple.com is reachable without any problem whatsoever - for me) and no update yet.

I'm going with the 24th :D
Too soon - not enough time to announce a media event. Try for the 31st or Aug 7th.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 18, 2007, 03:26 AM
Too soon - not enough time to announce a media event. Try for the 31st or Aug 7th.

I concur. I'm highly hoping for the 31th at the latest.

Genghis Khan
Jul 18, 2007, 03:50 AM
if the rumours about iLife going golden master are true (meaning they haven't released it yet, waiting for a time when people are spending big on that kind of thing...guessing start of school year)
it follows from this that they would double the impact with overdue iMacs and perhaps iPods
if new iMacs come...new processors...
maybe new minis to accomadate rejected processors?

on top of all this leopard in october

basically i'm saying that all these things that are overdue will come in quick succession...we know that they have had time to do all of this

if they do choose to spread it all out we'll have an exciting 6 months, culminating in iPhone for australia


sorry if i seem long winded and optimistic...but take out iPhone and laptops and apple haven't done anything for over a year

mathwhiz90601
Jul 18, 2007, 12:28 PM
I agree.

PCMacUser
Jul 18, 2007, 04:16 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see these go in MBPs ... as a simple mid-cycle bump ... no fanfare, etc.

I doubt that these chips will ever make it into an Apple product. Period.

PCMacUser
Jul 18, 2007, 04:22 PM
From my understanding pretty much all of Intel's Core processors can hit 3+ghz on Air with little to no voltage bumping. I would imagine if that is true that we could see Apple actually offer faster "factory overclocked" options. I just don't see Apple giving us the ability to set the clockspeed ourselves. Besides where would we do that at (noting that there is no hit del for bios type option during bootup)?

Apple is not really in a position to offer overclocked products, since their case designs have an emphasis on modern slimline design and asthetics, rather than effective cooling. An example of this is the MBP, which runs hotter than any other laptop (PC or Mac) that I've ever come across, but is IMHO the best looking portable out there.

mathwhiz90601
Jul 18, 2007, 05:31 PM
Agreed. I saw a clunky ol' Dell laptop today. Not pretty - it's so BOXY! Yech.

But I'd give up some asthetics for more power. I don't mind having fans. I think.

shawmanus
Jul 23, 2007, 01:57 PM
Intel is releasing x7900 (2.8ghz) in september and bumping up standard mobile processor to 2.6ghz(T7800). One hopes apple would use t7800 is macbook pro and iMac.

BenRoethig
Jul 23, 2007, 08:19 PM
Intel is releasing x7900 (2.8ghz) in september and bumping up standard mobile processor to 2.6ghz(T7800). One hopes apple would use t7800 is macbook pro and iMac.

Not going to happen with the Macbook Pro. It's too thin. The 7800 and 7900 are for thicker desktop replacement types.