Upcoming 45nm Xeon Processors from Intel

I remember when IBM was talking about getting a groundbreaking thin (measured in nm) process and never seemed to manage it. Does anyone know if they ever managed to achieve it in the G5 class processors that are used in PS3's, etc?

Less heat = good news.

Still too slow.

Might as well just until MWSF 2008 and live with my D800.

not bad not bad. im presuming the macpro will eventually have a dual quad core version of these in the next updates, or the following updates. would be a nice addition to the family

Oh, so these are the wolfdales.

It's amazing, Moore's Law just keeps beating itself! By the time my brand new mbp gets old, Apple will be selling laptops with the ability to make breakfast and do all my housework

Mmm.....I want now

Whaaa?

Honestly, how would this merit a negative rating?

INTC earnings out on Tuesday

We should get some insight into Apple's Mac sales numbers when Intel reports earnings today. Most think the numbers will be very good, which would bode well for Apple. With as over hyped as the iPhone was it should prove to be boost to Mac sales and iPod sales and that's a very good thing.

The iPhone is great and all, but just remember that Mac and iPod sales are the biggest factors for profit, at least for now. It's going to be one heck of a week between now and next week when Apple's earnings come out.

Posted from an iPhone

holy guacamoly! An actual mac rumor on macrumors!

Have you seen http://www.apple.com 's main page lately? iPhone all over the place? Like macs don't exist any more.

I know this detailed just Xeon's, but you think the mobile variants will also be mainly focused on quad-core too ?

That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.

Either way, looks all right for the Mac Pro owners of the future.

I guess this could be rated negative because the fastest quad-core right now is 3.0GHz and this update will only increase it by 160MHz (for each core), so it's not much compared to what it's at already.

samh004 said:

I know this detailed just Xeon's, but you think the mobile variants will also be mainly focused on quad-core too ?

Click to expand...

I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind. A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core. Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.

samh004 said:

That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.

Click to expand...

Ever since the G4, the difference has been shrinking dramatically. Frankly, I think that Apple thinks that the SR/C2D differnce is good enough. MBP sales obviously aren't that bad, as the base 2.2 seems to be sold out in a lot of places.

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

CalBoy said:

I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind. A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core. Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.

Click to expand...

Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 °C warmer, just when idling.

mhar4 said:

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

Click to expand...

6 GHz = badass power consumption and heat. Apple did good.

mhar4 said:

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

Click to expand...

If there's anything that should have been learned during the PPC days, Ghz does not matter as much as how much the chip can do. Intel was the right move for Apple.

RBilRamZ said:

Honestly, how would this merit a negative rating?

Click to expand...

Well, the chip news is great. When will Apple put it in the machines? How long must we wait? That's the only negative. It's been almost a year with no iMac or mini updates. The Mac Pro was last updated in April and all they did was add the Octo. Don't get me wrong...that's a slammin' machine! I don't have that kind of dough though. If Apple is still going to take so long between chip bumps, I'd like to see some price drops inbetween. We used to think it was because of the PPC architecture. Who are they going to blame now? The need too take a break from all the iPhone/AppleTV distractions and get back to the Mac. They've been ignoring it all year!

MrCrowbar said:

Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 °C warmer, just when idling.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.

The opening post does make mention of Penryn "encompassing the entire spectrum". So that includes their mobile line of processors.
Less power draw, less heat, faster clock speeds, more cores. Quad core in a new MBP? Yes please.

I really like Intel's philosophy in regards to cores. Why use two when you can have four, eight, sixteen etc... My multi-threaded rendering engines will be very grateful.

And I agree with skellener, the only unknown that remains is how fast Apple will move to adopt these new procs.

CalBoy said:

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.

Click to expand...

Lone Deranger said:

The opening post does make mention of Penryn "encompassing the entire spectrum". So that includes their mobile line of processors. Less power draw, less heat, faster clock speeds, more cores. Quad core in a new MBP? Yes please.

Click to expand...

Intel decided to make the Penryn name encompass their entire line of 45nm products, but my understanding is that the Penryn mobile chips aren't any more like the Xeon than Merom is like Xeon. It's just a shared code name. So don't expect four cores in the mobile chips, but expect a 45nm shrink of Merom with some important improvements, mostly in terms of power consumption & heat loss.

It looks like the mobile Penryn chips aren't coming out until Q1 2008. Does anyone have more information on those?

As for the differences between the Mac mobile lines: Santa Rosa is a big difference, and presumably the MBP will get Penryn around the same time the MB gets Santa Rosa. Most people who need the Pro version will know enough to realize that there's a substantial difference between the two.

I *think* the "intel was the worst decision Apple ever made" comment was a joke, but look at it this way: I bought a Powerbook G4 in 2005 with a G4 chip that was YEARS past its prime. Intel comes out with a new chip line every 2 years, with significant improvements (e.g. chipset, architecture) every year. At least for the mobile end of the lineup (and the iMac uses mobile chips too), Intel was the way to go. The bulk of Apples sales come from that end of the lineup. You can have the fastest G6 Power Mac in the world, but if Apple can't make competitive notebooks, you won't have any Macs for long.

mhar4 said:

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

Click to expand...

The Power 6 processor, not the PowerPC. Reminder:
PowerPC G5 = derivative of Power 4
all earlier PowerPC's = based on the Power 1 architecture

Actually the Power 5 already smokes any Intel processor found in a Mac. It even beats the workstation class processor in Intel lineup, the Itanium (see for example [1]).

This is what we are talking about here, workstation class processors. No way to put any of those even in a Mac Pro enclosure. Too much power consumption and heat as MrCrowbar answered you.

With your reasoning, Apple's move to RISC processor in the 90's would not have been toward PowerPC but toward the Alpha processors from Digital because they smoked the competition at the time. And the move to Intel would have resulted in putting Itaniums in the mac pro's.

Apple does not target that market at all…

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2872

And a yes

mhar4 said:

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

Click to expand...

And maybe you would like to point out where the mobile road map of a 6 ghz chip is please. At least you wouldn't have to worry about heating, hot water and ovens in a house with one of those babies. Come to think of it a house with one of those babies is likely to be a collection of carbon molecules!

I don't think that we'll see any updates to the mobile market for at least a year, maybe 2.
And also I feel that the move to Intel was the best descision Apple has made in recent times.

Whoops, here they go again with the irregular decimal speeds! 2,33, 3,16... The MacBook Pro has such a clean lineup right now with 2,2 and 2,4.