PDA

View Full Version : Intel announces 2.8 GHz notebook processor




4God
Aug 22, 2007, 01:07 PM
Now we're talking. :D

I see a bump in our future. ;)

LINK (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33500/135/)



mkrishnan
Aug 22, 2007, 01:09 PM
This is the chip that's in the high-end iMac now, 4God. ;)

And it has a TDP of 44 watts...it's not showing up in a Macbook near you, unless it ships with an external heat shield for your body! :(

4God
Aug 22, 2007, 01:11 PM
This is the chip that's in the high-end iMac now, 4God. ;)

Oops, didn't think it was the same model number. Sorry if this is
an irrelevant post. Ahh, I have now read the entire article......duh.

Please be kind.....

mkrishnan
Aug 22, 2007, 01:13 PM
No worries. It's confusing, but this part:

The first customer to get this high-end processor was once again Apple, which quietly began offering the chip two weeks ago for its new iMac. A 2.8 GHz iMac with a 24" monitor is currently offered from $2300, which translates into a $250 premium over a 2.4 GHz (non-"Extreme") model.

...is talking about the new 7900 chip and not the 7800.

(As a side note, the Intel iMacs have all, as far as I know, used "laptop" chip designs -- Yonah and Merom, before this one. Although, in this chip's case, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a laptop design!)

kman79
Aug 22, 2007, 07:03 PM
Engadget is saying new Intel chips for first quarter of 08 will clock as high as 3Ghz at 25-35 watts. http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/22/intel-readying-slew-of-45nm-penryn-mobile-cpus/

Could this be the next update to the MBPs? At the rate its going, for those who want to have the newest MBP would have to purchase a new notebook every 6-8 months. Apple should have a lease program :D

aliquis-
Aug 22, 2007, 07:41 PM
Engadget is saying new Intel chips for first quarter of 08 will clock as high as 3Ghz at 25-35 watts. http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/22/intel-readying-slew-of-45nm-penryn-mobile-cpus/

Could this be the next update to the MBPs? At the rate its going, for those who want to have the newest MBP would have to purchase a new notebook every 6-8 months. Apple should have a lease program :DAnd why would one need to have the newest components all the time?

vicious7
Aug 22, 2007, 07:50 PM
And why would one need to have the newest components all the time?

Not that I subscribe to this, but bragging right, for one ;)

ZachPruckowski
Aug 22, 2007, 10:28 PM
I agree that we won't be seeing this. It'd be a bit too hot for the anorexic MBPs. I mean, if they weren't so thin-obsessed, sure, but while 44 Watts will fit in a 19-20 inch Alienware gaming beast with SLI, it's not getting in a no-desktop-replacement notebook

zap2
Aug 22, 2007, 10:31 PM
Apple ahead of the curve as normal!!

squeeks
Aug 22, 2007, 11:32 PM
And why would one need to have the newest components all the time?

i do

but ill believe a 25-30 watt 3ghz chip when i see one

the reason apple uses laptop chips in the imac is because they run cooler they also come at a premium which is why everyone dosent do that

Santa Rosa
Aug 23, 2007, 09:43 AM
I wish my Mac was in date forever!! Get a sick feeling in the bottom of my stomach to see whats coming out next and knowing I cant get it!!!

Also as a reply to earlier, bragging rights are very important lol, at least in my group of friends :rolleyes:

squeeks
Aug 23, 2007, 09:47 AM
...and knowing I cant get it!!!



Ebay

Santa Rosa
Aug 23, 2007, 12:31 PM
Ebay

Im not a fan of making big purchases like that on eBay. Its something I try and steer well clear of. If you can afford to loose it then fine otherwise for me I just have to leave it!! Cant have everything in life although I try!!!

squeeks
Aug 23, 2007, 12:39 PM
Im not a fan of making big purchases like that on eBay. Its something I try and steer well clear of. If you can afford to loose it then fine otherwise for me I just have to leave it!! Cant have everything in life although I try!!!

yeah i agree about buying something that big, i ment sell your old one so you could buy the newest thing

MacRumors
Aug 23, 2007, 01:41 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Intel announced (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33500/135/) the Core 2 Extreme X7900 yesterday at Games Convention 2007 (http://www.gc-germany.com/index.php?page=64).

The 2.8GHz Merom processor offers a 4MB L2 cache with support for 800MHz Front Side Bus.

Readers will recognize this chip as the chip that was announced in the iMac on August 7th as a high end configuration. It appears that Apple is able to get preferential shipments on upcoming Intel processors. Intel had previously provided (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/06/apple-using-exclusive-3ghz-xeon-from-intel/) Apple with a 3.0GHz Xeon (Clovertown) processor with an early limited production.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/23/intel-launches-mobile-extreme-cpu-already-in-imac/)

Eidorian
Aug 23, 2007, 01:43 PM
CPU-Z confirms this as well.

PlaceofDis
Aug 23, 2007, 01:51 PM
very nice work.

i'm glad that Intel and Apple have a good relationship. much better than the Motorola/IBM days.

LimeiBook86
Aug 23, 2007, 02:05 PM
very nice work.

i'm glad that Intel and Apple have a good relationship. much better than the Motorola/IBM days.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure it makes both companies very happy. :D :p

4God
Aug 23, 2007, 02:13 PM
Exciting to say the least.

~Shard~
Aug 23, 2007, 02:15 PM
The Apple-Intel relationship definitely seems to be a bit better than the Apple-Motorola relationship of years past. Preferential treatment is great, hopefully it will continue with the upcoiming Penryn chips. :cool:

deputy_doofy
Aug 23, 2007, 02:25 PM
The Apple-Intel relationship definitely seems to be a bit better than the Apple-Motorola relationship of years past. Preferential treatment is great, hopefully it will continue with the upcoiming Penryn chips. :cool:

While Apple always played a part in the AIM alliance, there were too many egos to protect - mainly IBM and Motorola. Neither one wanted to listen to the other about how to proceed after the G3. I think Intel might appreciate Apple's input - however indirect - about how their chips should proceed, energy-wise. Of course, I base that statement purely on remembering something I read (though I don't know if it was factual or someone's opinion on these forums).

MacsRgr8
Aug 23, 2007, 02:25 PM
Who wold have imagined it..... Apple getting Intel CPU's inside a Mac even before Intel announces them!

arkmannj
Aug 23, 2007, 02:26 PM
cool, I've asked this before (I think on M.R.) wonder if we'll see thin in MBP anytime soon. I'm wondering because I'll be in the market starting next week for a new laptop. But I don't wan't to play the waiting game for "the next update" forever.

As a side note; any opinions on if I should go 15" or 17" ?
I'm torn between LCD vs Higher Res diplay.

Panu
Aug 23, 2007, 02:28 PM
I bought a 24" iMac with a 2.8 Core 2 Extreme CPU, or at least that's what the order and the acknowledgement says. "About This Mac" reports a Core 2 Duo, though.

I haven't talked to Apple about this yet, but is there a 2.8 Core 2 Duo? Is the iMac misreporting the CPU?

Hm.

Snowy_River
Aug 23, 2007, 02:32 PM
I bought a 24" iMac with a 2.8 Core 2 Extreme CPU, or at least that's what the order and the acknowledgement says. "About This Mac" reports a Core 2 Duo, though.

I haven't talked to Apple about this yet, but is there a 2.8 Core 2 Duo? Is the iMac misreporting the CPU?

Hm.

The Extreme is a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo. There is no Core 2 Duo Merom chip that runs at 2.8GHz, except the 'Extreme'.

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 02:33 PM
The Apple-Intel relationship definitely seems to be a bit better than the Apple-Motorola relationship of years past. Preferential treatment is great, hopefully it will continue with the upcoiming Penryn chips. :cool:

That's what I'm hoping. Shame I won't actually be able to purchase one when they come out (finances), so an early release won't actually affect me. But having this preferential treatment is pretty cool. Much better than the sit-and-wait for under-delivery from IBM and previously Motorola.

Squonk
Aug 23, 2007, 02:35 PM
I bought a 24" iMac with a 2.8 Core 2 Extreme CPU, or at least that's what the order and the acknowledgement says. "About This Mac" reports a Core 2 Duo, though.

I haven't talked to Apple about this yet, but is there a 2.8 Core 2 Duo? Is the iMac misreporting the CPU?

Hm.


Perhaps that is what 10.4.11 will do is to fix this CPU reporting!

Anyway, it is awesome to have a relationship with a CPU maker where we get a steady stream of updates and can even scoop the rest of the industry! Wahoo!!

Now, how about those 2.6GHz cpu's for the MBP??? [Like I really need a 2.6 instead of a 2.4 or a 2.2 for that matter....] :rolleyes:

arkmannj
Aug 23, 2007, 02:35 PM
I bought a 24" iMac with a 2.8 Core 2 Extreme CPU, or at least that's what the order and the acknowledgement says. "About This Mac" reports a Core 2 Duo, though.

I haven't talked to Apple about this yet, but is there a 2.8 Core 2 Duo? Is the iMac misreporting the CPU?

Hm.

Try clicking "More Info" to launch System Profiler that might gove you some more details.

kungming2
Aug 23, 2007, 02:38 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Intel announced (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33500/135/) the Core 2 Extreme X7900 yesterday at Games Convention 2007 (http://www.gc-germany.com/index.php?page=64).

The 2.8GHz Merom processor offers a 4MB L2 cache with support for 800MHz Front Side Bus.

Readers will recognize this chip as the chip that was announced in the iMac on August 7th as a high end configuration. It appears that Apple is able to get preferential shipments on upcoming Intel processors. Intel had previously provided (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/06/apple-using-exclusive-3ghz-xeon-from-intel/) Apple with a 3.0GHz Xeon (Clovertown) processor with an early limited production.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/23/intel-launches-mobile-extreme-cpu-already-in-imac/)

I still remember debating this with a guy who was adamant that "Intel will not give Apple a new chip this early!" And was saying it was an overclocked X7800. :o

tk421
Aug 23, 2007, 02:54 PM
Cool! So maybe we'll see the Mac Pro updated a bit before November 11, since that's when Intel formally launches new Xeon processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/15/intels-penryn-xeon-processors-due-in-november/). The Mac Pro is due for an upgrade!

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 02:55 PM
cool, I've asked this before (I think on M.R.) wonder if we'll see thin in MBP anytime soon. I'm wondering because I'll be in the market starting next week for a new laptop. But I don't wan't to play the waiting game for "the next update" forever.

As a side note; any opinions on if I should go 15" or 17" ?
I'm torn between LCD vs Higher Res diplay.

thiS and LED?

I'm torn between wanting hi res + needing 17" and the efficiency of LED backlighting. I'm hoping/pretty sure that by the time I will be able to purchase one all the MBP displays will be LED. And the 15" may be hi res 1680x1050 by then, too.

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 02:59 PM
Cool! So maybe we'll see the Mac Pro updated a bit before November 11, since that's when Intel formally launches new Xeon processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/15/intels-penryn-xeon-processors-due-in-november/). The Mac Pro is due for an upgrade!

That would be welcome to Multimedia and the like who have been waiting for a new machine. They (the Mac Pros) really are in need of an update. I didn't know there was a Nov 11 release date for the new Penryns. Maybe I did but it seemed so far away. If Apple is able to get 1-2 months lead time on some of Intel's new chips, maybe we'll see a MacPro release with Leopard or even sooner?!

CWallace
Aug 23, 2007, 03:00 PM
I still remember debating this with a guy who was adamant that "Intel will not give Apple a new chip this early!" And was saying it was an overclocked X7800. :o


No offense intended, but everything I have read said the 2.8GHz unit in the iMac 24" is indeed an overclocked X7800. Intel "unlocked" the FSB multiplier on the X7800 specifically to allow end-users and OEMs to "kick it up a notch".

Now, Apple might have always had X7900s, but I tend to think that was not the case. It is possible, if not probable, that Apple would start taking X7900s now for the 2.8GHz part, unless they're getting X7800's cheaper.

commander.data
Aug 23, 2007, 03:04 PM
The Apple-Intel relationship definitely seems to be a bit better than the Apple-Motorola relationship of years past. Preferential treatment is great, hopefully it will continue with the upcoiming Penryn chips. :cool:
I bet Apple makes enough noise in the background to encourage Intel to pay attention to them. Like I bet the choice of using AMD GPUs in the iMac instead of faster "neutral" nVidia GPUs, was partly to point out to Intel that Apple is still keeping it's options open. Besides, Intel probably doesn't mind giving Apple first dibs since it isn't a huge volume and Apple seems willing to keep quiet about it, like how the 3GHz Clovertons were never actually advertised as X5365 or the 2.8GHz iMacs weren't advertised as Extremes.

RajSmith
Aug 23, 2007, 03:04 PM
I also noticed the "Core 2 Duo" in the system info box and was worried....

Til I read this:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306318

Hope that helps to clear things up.

Oh, and the new 24" iMac ROCKS. (I upgraded from a 4 year old TiBook G4, so it's really noticeable how far the Mac has come!)

LouTreize
Aug 23, 2007, 03:12 PM
I remember running geekbench and showing me "X7900" somewhere...

elppa
Aug 23, 2007, 03:13 PM
This is because Steve sorted them out at WWDC:2007 with a nice silver shiny thing designed by Johnny Ives, I'm sure of it.

There is no other possible explanation.

EagerDragon
Aug 23, 2007, 03:13 PM
Who wold have imagined it..... Apple getting Intel CPU's inside a Mac even before Intel announces them!

That is twice now. This one for the iMac and the one for the Power Mac (3G).

Sesshi
Aug 23, 2007, 03:20 PM
Except it's a notebook processor.

Which Apple have put into a perfectly nice and acceptable but ultimately rather sub-par desktop.

Er... Hello?

We'll see real notebooks with these inside in the next few months, and not from Apple.

~Shard~
Aug 23, 2007, 03:20 PM
I didn't know there was a Nov 11 release date for the new Penryns. Maybe I did but it seemed so far away.

It was Front Page news (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/15/intels-penryn-xeon-processors-due-in-november/) here at MacRumors last week, check it out... :cool:

phytonix
Aug 23, 2007, 03:22 PM
these CPUs are EXPENSIVE...

Digital Skunk
Aug 23, 2007, 03:26 PM
thiS and LED?

I'm torn between wanting hi res + needing 17" and the efficiency of LED backlighting. I'm hoping/pretty sure that by the time I will be able to purchase one all the MBP displays will be LED. And the 15" may be hi res 1680x1050 by then, too.

By the time I purchase an upgrade, I hope that Apple fixes the QC problems with the yellow displays, or gets them from a different manufacturer. I also hope to see that 2.8 GHz in the next 17" MBP and/or high end 15" MBP.

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 03:28 PM
It was Front Page news (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/15/intels-penryn-xeon-processors-due-in-november/) here at MacRumors last week, check it out... :cool:

Yeah, I was actually in that thread. At the time the date didn't register with me because it seemed so far out. But since then, realizing the early access Apple has now shown 2 times, it makes it seem like an ever rapidly approaching possibility for release.

Lord Blackadder
Aug 23, 2007, 03:29 PM
Exclusive early Intel CPU launches for Apple are a good thing. :)

Rocketman
Aug 23, 2007, 03:35 PM
Apple has a far lower TDP standard than Dell or H-P (Hewlett-Packard).

As such an INTEL release of a processor for "mobile", may not indeed be "mobile" in terms of Apple geeks.

Apple is on the "bleeding edge" of "ultra-mobile", and as such they will necessarily wait for the die-shrink version to go mobile. The good news is that in the mean-time iMac is the "neo-mobile" line in/at Apple.

All-in-one indeed :D

Rocketman

iPhone is the new PBG3 color with internet (formerly MacPlus handheld)!

Panu
Aug 23, 2007, 03:44 PM
I bought a 24" iMac with a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme CPU, or at least that's what the order and the acknowledgement says. "About This Mac" reports a Core 2 Duo, though.

I haven't talked to Apple about this yet, but is there a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo? Is the iMac misreporting the CPU?

Hm.

Quoting myself. Thanks to everyone who replied to this. The System Profiler shows it as Core 2 Duo, but all the specs match the Core 2 Extreme. It was helpful to find out that there is no 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo, and the link to the Apple knowledge base was the clincher.

Bottom line: The iMac reports Core 2 Extreme as if it were a Core 2 Duo. That's what I suspected, and I'm "extreme"ly grateful for the confirmation.

It's a fabulous machine, by the way.

Demon Hunter
Aug 23, 2007, 03:46 PM
So is this going into a MBP or not? :confused:

Squonk
Aug 23, 2007, 03:50 PM
So is this going into a MBP or not? :confused:

Nope - too hot. But there will be a 2.6GHz version of the 7800 which runs "cool enough" for the MBP chassis. Fall refresh with Leopard with bigger hard drives? Me hopes....

twoodcc
Aug 23, 2007, 03:55 PM
wow! this intel switch might have its perks after all :)

momoe
Aug 23, 2007, 04:04 PM
I still remember debating this with a guy who was adamant that "Intel will not give Apple a new chip this early!" And was saying it was an overclocked X7800. :o

This Apple page (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306318) has a link to the Intel Core 2 Mobile Extreme Product Brief

Unless I am reading this wrong, the brief mentions only a X7800 chip.

"... Performance measured on Intel® Core™2 Extreme mobile processor X7800 running SPECint*_base2006..."

What's the deal?

:apple: momoe

ChrisA
Aug 23, 2007, 04:06 PM
I wish my Mac was in date forever!! Get a sick feeling in the bottom of my stomach to see whats coming out next


Not me. I bought the 24" iMac before the new ones with the cheaper screens came out.

DoFoT9
Aug 23, 2007, 04:10 PM
Apple ahead of the curve as normal!!

hahah apple is normally a couple of months behind in releasing their products..

mdriftmeyer
Aug 23, 2007, 04:10 PM
Here's to all the moron's who called it an overclocked CPU. This Budweiser is for you!

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 04:14 PM
Here's to all the moron's who called it an overclocked CPU. This Budweiser is for you!

Is it not? Is the Core 2 Extreme not overclocked? I was under the impression from other posts that it was OC'd to the 2.8 speed. :confused:

~Shard~
Aug 23, 2007, 04:16 PM
Yeah, I was actually in that thread. At the time the date didn't register with me because it seemed so far out. But since then, realizing the early access Apple has now shown 2 times, it makes it seem like an ever rapidly approaching possibility for release.

Yep - could be only a couple months away in an ideal world! ;)

Cloudsurfer
Aug 23, 2007, 04:41 PM
So does this beef up the gaming performance or what? Compared to the 2,4 Merom? It seems like the 24" resolution is a lot to handle for a Radeon 2600, especially in gams like Prey.

~Shard~
Aug 23, 2007, 04:44 PM
So does this beef up the gaming performance or what? Compared to the 2,4 Merom? It seems like the 24" resolution is a lot to handle for a Radeon 2600, especially in gams like Prey.

Let's not get into that discussion here. :o There are many threads already discussing the abilities of the new GPU in the iMac and pretty much all of them are quite intense and heated discussions! ;) Just do a search and you'll find quite a few threads related to the new iMacs and gaming.

oduinnin
Aug 23, 2007, 04:49 PM
This Apple page (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306318) has a link to the Intel Core 2 Mobile Extreme Product Brief

Unless I am reading this wrong, the brief mentions only a X7800 chip.

"... Performance measured on Intel® Core™2 Extreme mobile processor X7800 running SPECint*_base2006..."

What's the deal?

:apple: momoe

But, if you follow their link in the footnotes on the second page, it will take you here (http://www.intel.com/performance/). :D

CWallace
Aug 23, 2007, 05:20 PM
But, if you follow their link in the footnotes on the second page, it will take you here (http://www.intel.com/performance/). :D

Yes, but when the iMac launched, the X7900 entry didn't exist on that page. Believe me, I Googled far and wide to find a 2.8GHz Core2 Duo Extreme mobile chip and came up with nada. All I found was articles on the X7800 being FSB-multiplier unlocked and OEMs selling them at 3GHz plus.

I know a few folks gutted the iMac when it came out. Did anyone gut a 2.8GHz model and if so, did any of the pics show the processor top with the part number and stepping info? Easiest way to know for sure.

CWallace
Aug 23, 2007, 05:22 PM
Is it not? Is the Core 2 Extreme not overclocked? I was under the impression from other posts that it was OC'd to the 2.8 speed. :confused:

The Core2 Extreme Edition mobile CPU is FSB-multiplier-unlocked, so you can overclock it without having to raise the FSB speed. You can just raise the multiplier from the stock setting.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/16/intels-2-6ghz-x7800-gaming-laptop-cpu-already-overclocked-to-3g/

oduinnin
Aug 23, 2007, 05:42 PM
Yes, but when the iMac launched, the X7900 entry didn't exist on that page. Believe me, I Googled far and wide to find a 2.8GHz Core2 Duo Extreme mobile chip and came up with nada. All I found was articles on the X7800 being FSB-multiplier unlocked and OEMs selling them at 3GHz plus.

I know a few folks gutted the iMac when it came out. Did anyone gut a 2.8GHz model and if so, did any of the pics show the processor top with the part number and stepping info? Easiest way to know for sure.

However, now, the X7800 doesn't exist on that page. AND, that's the page the Apple article will lead you to. So, I believe Apple was using the X7900 all along, it just wasn't published yet.

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 05:43 PM
The Core2 Extreme Edition mobile CPU is FSB-multiplier-unlocked, so you can overclock it without having to raise the FSB speed. You can just raise the multiplier from the stock setting.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/16/intels-2-6ghz-x7800-gaming-laptop-cpu-already-overclocked-to-3g/

So there are two mobile Core 2 Extremes out now:

the x7800 which is 2.6Ghz standard but has been overclocked to 3.0ghz by some companies, and some argue this is what was clocked at 2.8ghz in the new iMac;

then there is the x7900 which is 2.8Ghz stock and was just announced? Some argue it is what is in the new iMac. If it is, meaning Apple got them early, then the iMac is NOT overclocked, though it has an overclockable cpu.

Is this correct? and is this where some of the confusion is coming from? People getting the 2 C2E models mixed up? I hope this helps straiten it out. Someone who knows more could elaborate to clear things up.

Thanks for the link.

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 05:46 PM
It could also be confusing because the title:

Intel Launches Mobile Extreme CPU (Already in iMac)

Do we have any proof these x7900s (which the article is about) are indeed those in the high-end iMacs, and not x7800s? Or are people just conjecturing both possibilities with no proof?

irun5k
Aug 23, 2007, 05:47 PM
Apple has a far lower TDP standard than Dell or H-P (Hewlett-Packard).

As such an INTEL release of a processor for "mobile", may not indeed be "mobile" in terms of Apple geeks.

Apple is on the "bleeding edge" of "ultra-mobile", and as such they will necessarily wait for the die-shrink version to go mobile. The good news is that in the mean-time iMac is the "neo-mobile" line in/at Apple.


No offense to Rocketman, but am I the only one who has no idea what any of this says? Maybe I'm just slow today :o

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 05:48 PM
You could just take yours apart when it arrives and settle it for us all, once and for all. :)

Eidorian
Aug 23, 2007, 05:48 PM
Do we have any proof these x7900s (which the article is about) are indeed those in the high-end iMacs, and not x7800s? Or are people just conjecturing both possibilities with no proof?Here... (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=345591)

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 05:48 PM
It could also be confusing because the title:

Intel Launches Mobile Extreme CPU (Already in iMac)

Do we have any proof these x7900s (which the article is about) are indeed those in the high-end iMacs, and not x7800s? Or are people just conjecturing both possibilities with no proof?

Proof: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=345591

InLikeALion
Aug 23, 2007, 05:55 PM
Leave it to Eidorian to be on the ball with the Penryn stuff.

Thanks for the link and clarification.

Spinnetti
Aug 23, 2007, 06:08 PM
I thought I saw that the iMac only has a 667FSB... guess the extra speed goes to waste or did I miss read something? Also, why have a great computer with such a lame video card? I had my visa all warmed up, but looks like I'll keep my current core duo for a while yet.....

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 06:11 PM
I thought I saw that the iMac only has a 667FSB... guess the extra speed goes to waste or did I miss read something? Also, why have a great computer with such a lame video card? I had my visa all warmed up, but looks like I'll keep my current core duo for a while yet.....

800MHz FSB, 667MHz memory bus. Video card is the best mobile card available from the current generation. What card where you looking for?

Sesshi
Aug 23, 2007, 06:15 PM
Is it not? Is the Core 2 Extreme not overclocked? I was under the impression from other posts that it was OC'd to the 2.8 speed. :confused:

No. It's OCable beyond 2.8Ghz. It just won't be doing so in an iMac or anything else which has poor thermal management for the sake of needing to be extra-quiet (or has poor thermal management and needs to be extra-quiet), as someone has put the computer right in front of your ears.

The rationale for using it and why it's used stock when no-one else who will use this CPU will use it as such is easy to see. The machine is crippled as a desktop as it uses laptop componentry, so to play catch-up they use a faster processor. But driving the faster CPU to anywhere near it's maximum potential will mean major heat issues for the thin case. So it's kind of trade-off.

They're using a fast laptop CPU so that it's not completely outpaced by a $700 E6750/1333FSB/DDR800 desktop using desktop parts, but they're idling it so that the heat doesn't overwhelm the rest of the components.

I like the styling of the new iMac, but if any single Apple product truly defines form over everything else, the BTO iMac is probably it.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 06:36 PM
No. It's OCable beyond 2.8Ghz. It just won't be doing so in an iMac or anything else which has poor thermal management for the sake of needing to be extra-quiet (or has poor thermal management and needs to be extra-quiet), as someone has put the computer right in front of your ears.

The rationale for using it and why it's used stock when no-one else who will use this CPU will use it as such is easy to see. The machine is crippled as a desktop as it uses laptop componentry, so to play catch-up they use a faster processor. But driving the faster CPU to anywhere near it's maximum potential will mean major heat issues for the thin case. So it's kind of trade-off. They're using a fast laptop CPU so that it's not completely outpaced by a $700 E6750/1333FSB/DDR800 desktop using desktop parts, but they're not running it as it would normally be so that the heat doesn't overwhelm the rest of the components.

Are you saying that under "normal" usage the X7900 would be factory overclocked?

Sesshi
Aug 23, 2007, 06:44 PM
Are you saying that under "normal" usage the X7900 would be factory overclocked?

Yes. Look for it in gaming laptops soon. X7800 laptops are just around the corner.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 06:49 PM
Yes. Look for it in gaming laptops soon. X7800 laptops are just around the corner.

I'll believe that when I see it. Do you have any evidence that this has happened in the past? Remember we are talking normal usage here, not some small niche offering.

Sesshi
Aug 23, 2007, 06:53 PM
The X (Extreme) CPU's are for gaming and high-performance use. They're delivered with unlocked multipliers specifically for overclocking use. It's not a 'normal' use. Apple's use for it is pretty special for the reason I stated. They need the processor so that it isn't a complete dog when compared with 24"-equipped E6750 desktops nearly half the price, but they can't actually run the CPU at it's full potential.

As for previous evidence, the unlocked-multiplier 2.3Ghz C2D option in my Dell M1710 laptop means I can run the 2.3Ghz processor completely reliably at just over 2.8Ghz without any significant increase in fan activity (and unlike Apple PC's the Dell has a properly designed cooling system which balances noise and heat removal better). The next-gen machine is due to turn up any day now with the 2.6Ghz X7800, which should be good for 3.2 ~ 3.4Ghz in the laptop.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 06:55 PM
The X (Extreme) CPU's are for gaming and high-performance use. They're delivered with unlocked multipliers specifically for overclocking use. It's not a 'normal' use. Apple's use for it is pretty special for the reason I stated. They need the processor so that it isn't something of a dog when compared with desktops half the price, but they can't actually run the CPU at it's full potential.

Then why not market it as a 3GHz or 3.2GHz part? You argument makes little sense to me. Are you saying that you speculate that most manufacturers will overclock this CPU or do you have a precedent for this?

Sesshi
Aug 23, 2007, 07:18 PM
Um... arguing with me about whether things make sense is not really going to make what's real outside of the highly limited Appleworld any different.

Overclocking is something that is part trial and error, and depends greatly on how you cool the processor. All Intel does is to unlock the multiplier, and tell you "this will definitely do the Ghz the we printed on it. Beyond that, it's your problem." The X-series is specifically intended for this. The E-series desktop processors for example can be overclocked, but that is not the stated intention of the processors.

Now, that performance is not achieved by bunging the stock fan on it. For example, my main home machines - the Dell XPS 710 H2C - uses a two-stage refrigeration system to crank the speed of the X-series desktop processor up to almost a Ghz beyond the nominal speed of the processors with absolute reliability (and just as importantly, with more or less the silence of the Pro despite packing two 8800GTX's as well). That is the sort of headroom the X-series processors give you. But Apple uses that purely as a heat-management tactic.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 07:21 PM
The X-series is specifically intended for this.


Really? Do you have proof of this?

Cloudsurfer
Aug 23, 2007, 07:23 PM
Let's not get into that discussion here. :o There are many threads already discussing the abilities of the new GPU in the iMac and pretty much all of them are quite intense and heated discussions! ;) Just do a search and you'll find quite a few threads related to the new iMacs and gaming.

I wasn't really going after the graphics... I was just wondering if 400MHz was worth the hefty price of the top end iMac. Is it a dramatic difference in performance?

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 07:29 PM
I wasn't really going after the graphics... I was just wondering if 400MHz was worth the hefty price of the top end iMac. Is it a dramatic difference in performance?

If you game in native res, than the 24" will add extra burden to the video card. Will the 2.8 give you more gaming for the money? Depends if the game is CPU limited or GPU limited.

Sesshi
Aug 23, 2007, 07:31 PM
Really? Do you have proof of this?

Oh for @#&%'s sake. Save me from the Jobsitized... Look it up.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 07:35 PM
Oh for @#&%'s sake. Save me from the Jobsitized... Look it up.

Sorry. The burden of proof is on you. You made a claim and now refuse to substantiate it.

StealthRider
Aug 23, 2007, 07:41 PM
Sorry. The burden of proof is on you. You made a claim and now refuse to substantiate it.

I think the fact that the Extreme (X) series is the only series of Intel chips with unlocked multipliers is pretty good proof.

koalition
Aug 23, 2007, 07:50 PM
yay new MPB's soon! :)

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 07:51 PM
I think the fact that the Extreme (X) series is the only series of Intel chips with unlocked multipliers is pretty good proof.

Not really. I suspect that it will be marketed as overclockable by the manufacturers but most of them will leave it at 2.8GHz. Most laptop configurations won't be able to handle the extra heat.

imacdaddy
Aug 23, 2007, 08:16 PM
It could also be confusing because the title:

Intel Launches Mobile Extreme CPU (Already in iMac)

Do we have any proof these x7900s (which the article is about) are indeed those in the high-end iMacs, and not x7800s? Or are people just conjecturing both possibilities with no proof?

Proof => http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=345591

Eidorian
Aug 23, 2007, 08:58 PM
Leave it to Eidorian to be on the ball with the Penryn stuff.

Thanks for the link and clarification.I am the master.

imacdaddy
Aug 23, 2007, 08:59 PM
Not me. I bought the 24" iMac before the new ones with the cheaper screens came out.

Where do you see the new 24" iMac are with cheaper screens? The new 24" iMacs are using H-IPS LCD panels...they are not cheap!

Proof => http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=344204&page=2

TrevorJacques
Aug 23, 2007, 09:14 PM
Finally. An explanation of why Apple has been stringing me along since 8th. with story after story, delay after delay, with respect to my iMac 2.8GHz. In the 24 years I've been using Macs, I've NEVER had such bad service or delivery. I've never had so many Apple people lead me along or give me such misleading comments, or been so patently unable to find reliable information about delivery.

The web store says 5-7 days for delivery, but Apple itself just told me it would be another THREE WEEKS for a computer that entered their production schedule on 8th. August.

For a Mac 'bigot' who has used exclusively Apple computers for all the right reasons for 26 years, I'm ticked off by Apple's premature announcement of a product 'available now,' when it is evidently not yet in the supply chain. What's even more galling is that my first G5 iMac arrived a couple of days after its date of announcement (and all the way from China. I tracked it). My dealer has lost all of his his margin on this box, as he tried to sort this out, which ticks me off even more.... :(

Let's hope that Steve reminds those in manufacturing and the supply chain that they have not met his exacting standards with this product release.

Apple has severely tarnished its image with this product release.

Spinnetti
Aug 23, 2007, 09:28 PM
800MHz FSB, 667MHz memory bus. Video card is the best mobile card available from the current generation. What card where you looking for?

Ah, ok, but to get full advantage, shouldn't the memory bus match the FSB or is that bypassed between the Processor and video card?

As to v-cards, Well, with the size of the housing, I wonder why they are limited to a mobile card? From the benchmarks I saw so far, its in some cases slower than the last gen one.. I have the 256meg x1600 now, but would like as fast as I can get. The desktop cards get a whole lot faster than the mobile ones.

Dunno really, but thought the top of the line would have a BTO option to get a better card like they used to..

I want to be able to run exactly one game, but I have to overclock my video to at least 500/500 to get playable frame rates (I run it under XP on bootcamp)

Multimedia
Aug 23, 2007, 09:32 PM
This is the chip that's in the high-end iMac now, 4God. ;)

And it has a TDP of 44 watts...it's not showing up in a Macbook near you, unless it ships with an external heat shield for your body! :(Is that too hot for the 17" MBP? What's the max TDP 17" MBP can withstand?

I've been trying to get an answer to these questions for two weeks already. So please somebody know? :confused:

CWallace
Aug 23, 2007, 09:54 PM
I suspect that it will be marketed as overclockable by the manufacturers but most of them will leave it at 2.8GHz. Most laptop configurations won't be able to handle the extra heat.

The reason Intel developed the FSB-multiplier lock was to prevent unscrupulous OEMs and computer shops from selling overclocked CPUs falsely identified as higher-performing parts.

Intel fully expects the X7800 and X7900 to be overclocked. There is no reason to pay the price premium for them, otherwise, because the stock performance isn't worth it. However, by not warrantying them beyond their "rated" spec, Intel shifts the support costs to the OEMs and end-users.

Intel could just improve their binning a bit and find the X7800s/X7900s that can run reliably faster then 2.6/2.8GHz, but then they might not be able to meet demand for these "faster" chips depending on each wafer's yield. But as the process improves, speeds naturally rise, so now that the majority of Core2 Extreme Mobiles coming off the wafer reliably run at (least at) 2.8GHz, Intel has now created the X7900. When the majority reliably run at 3.0GHz, we will see the "X8000" or somesuch. Then the "X8200" when they hit 3.2GHz.

But before they officially launch from Intel, folks will be running X7800s at 2.8GHz (or beyond), X7900s at 3.0GHz, X8000s at 3.2GHz, and so on. How far "beyond" will depend on cooling and other factors.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 09:59 PM
The reason Intel developed the FSB-multiplier lock was to prevent unscrupulous OEMs and computer shops from selling overclocked CPUs falsely identified as higher-performing parts.

Intel fully expects the X7800 and X7900 to be overclocked. There is no reason to pay the price premium for them, otherwise, because the stock performance isn't worth it. However, by not warrantying them beyond their "rated" spec, Intel shifts the support costs to the OEMs and end-users.

Intel could just improve their binning a bit and find the X7800s/X7900s that can run reliably faster then 2.6/2.8GHz, but then they might not be able to meet demand for these "faster" chips depending on each wafer's yield. But as the process improves, speeds naturally rise, so now that the majority of Core2 Extreme Mobiles coming off the wafer reliably run at (least at) 2.8GHz, Intel has now created the X7900. When the majority reliably run at 3.0GHz, we will see the "X8000" or somesuch. Then the "X8200" when they hit 3.2GHz.

But before they officially launch from Intel, folks will be running X7800s at 2.8GHz (or beyond), X7900s at 3.0GHz, X8000s at 3.2GHz, and so on. How far "beyond" will depend on cooling and other factors.

So we end up where I said we would. Manufacturers will "normally" sell the X7900 as a 2.8GHz part and interested parties in the know will buy them for their overclocking performance, taking all blame if something goes awry.

Rocketman
Aug 23, 2007, 10:02 PM
Is that too hot for the 17" MBP? What's the max TDP 17" MBP can withstand?

I've been trying to get an answer to these questions for two weeks already. So please somebody know? :confused:

In short, probably not.

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

Rocketman

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 10:04 PM
In short, probably not.

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/

Rocketman

:confused: desktop quadcores????

Rocketman
Aug 23, 2007, 10:22 PM
:confused: desktop quadcores????

I am the ******* who predicted 4 core iMacs by now :(

Rocketman

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 10:25 PM
I am the ******* who predicted 4 core iMacs by now :(

Rocketman

Sorry to hear that. ;)

Multimedia
Aug 23, 2007, 10:32 PM
Is that too hot for the 17" MBP? What's the max TDP 17" MBP can withstand?

I've been trying to get an answer to these questions for two weeks already. So please somebody know? :confused:In short, probably not.

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2That's not an answer. Is it or is it not too hot for the 17" MBP?

I read all those links and they tell me nothing about maximum TDP for the 17" MBP. Can someone say it will or won't work?

Eidorian
Aug 23, 2007, 10:39 PM
That's not an answer. Is it or is it not too hot for the 17" MBP?

I read all those links and they tell me nothing about maximum TDP for the 17" MBP. Can someone say it will or won't work?We don't know either.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 10:47 PM
85W in - TDP of 44W leaves 41W for everything else? Sounds a bit slim.

iAlan
Aug 23, 2007, 10:55 PM
From what I remember reading somewhere Apple is the 2nd largest computer manufacturer behind Dell - and being #2 has obviusly helped them get a degree of preferential treatment.

On a side note, does anyone know if Apple are investing in Intel in terms of R&D to help bring better chips to market and to then get first bite of the apple (no pun intended)?

dicklacara
Aug 23, 2007, 11:03 PM
Yes, but when the iMac launched, the X7900 entry didn't exist on that page. Believe me, I Googled far and wide to find a 2.8GHz Core2 Duo Extreme mobile chip and came up with nada. All I found was articles on the X7800 being FSB-multiplier unlocked and OEMs selling them at 3GHz plus.

I know a few folks gutted the iMac when it came out. Did anyone gut a 2.8GHz model and if so, did any of the pics show the processor top with the part number and stepping info? Easiest way to know for sure.

Just ordered--

iMac, 24-inch, 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme
Part Number: Z0FC
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
1TB Serial ATA Drive
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Built-in Display
Apple Mighty Mouse
Accessory kit

MagnusVonMagnum
Aug 23, 2007, 11:22 PM
Apple ahead of the curve as normal!!

Except when it comes to video cards, at which point they are not much better than a $500 Dell laptop, only for 2-4x the price.

flopticalcube
Aug 23, 2007, 11:39 PM
Except when it comes to video cards, at which point they are not much better than a $500 Dell laptop, only for 2-4x the price.

Sorry? The only $500 Dell laptop I can find is this one: http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspn_1501?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

and it comes with a Radeon Xpress1150. Are you saying the 1150 is better than the HD 2600? :confused:

Dustman
Aug 24, 2007, 12:22 AM
Sorry? The only $500 Dell laptop I can find is this one: http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspn_1501?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

and it comes with a Radeon Xpress1150. Are you saying the 1150 is better than the HD 2600? :confused:

LOL, Dell sucks. If Apple ever shipped a laptop like that I'd lose so much respect.

BKKbill
Aug 24, 2007, 01:23 AM
I know It's been asked before but didn't see any reply. Is the iMac, 24-inch, 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme worth the extra money.

Mustafa Monde
Aug 24, 2007, 01:46 AM
Worth the money? I thought so. I'm typing this on the glossy screen of my brand spanking new 24" running a 2.8 GHz C2D outfitted with maxed ram and a 750 GB HD.

Here is my thinking on the purchase. Most of my use for this machine will be for Video, Illustration and Photography. Considering the iMac cannot be upgraded in the sense that a pro model can, I think getting the maxium specs isn't a bad plan. It will translate to a longer useful lifespan for the product and better performance.

In terms of what runs this pup-7800 or 7900-it doesn't really matter because Steve was right-it screams. The glossy screen takes a bit of getting used to, but I can say, with confidence, it is a step up from anything I've used to date including my office G5 mac tower. I don't game, so I have noting to say on that front. In terms of performance though, it is really an astounding machine. Even emulated (Rosetta) apps work better than on my fastest PPC. The FW 800 works perfectly and the second screen makes this something of a dream system for me.

My surprises for the new iMac included, the speakers, which sound better than any machine I've ever heard, the brightness of the display and the thinness. I know they say it's slim, but you gotta see it to appreciate it. So far I'm very happy with this machine and would recommend it to anyone who wants to upgrade their computing life.

Anonymous Freak
Aug 24, 2007, 01:48 AM
No worries. It's confusing, but this part:

The first customer to get this high-end processor was once again Apple, which quietly began offering the chip two weeks ago for its new iMac. A 2.8 GHz iMac with a 24" monitor is currently offered from $2300, which translates into a $250 premium over a 2.4 GHz (non-"Extreme") model.

...is talking about the new 7900 chip and not the 7800.

(As a side note, the Intel iMacs have all, as far as I know, used "laptop" chip designs -- Yonah and Merom, before this one. Although, in this chip's case, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a laptop design!)

The problem comes in that the X7900 was just released at the same price as the X7800. The X7800 hasn't seen an official price cut, but a T7800 (same basic chip,) was released at the same time as the X7900, at $530. (Basically, the X7900 has caused all the chips below it to drop a price notch, with the former X7800 now being called the T7800 as part of the price drop.)

What's really amazing is that the X7900 is $851, while the T7700 (the 2.4 GHz chip that the iMac ships with stock,) is $361 (source (http://vr-zone.com/articles/Intel_Mobile_CPU_Price_Cut_In_Sep/4980.html)). That means that Apple is charging a $250 upgrade fee for a chip that costs $490 more. (In all fairness, the T7700 is only hitting $361 officially at the same time the X7900 is officially released; until now, the T7700 was $530, which makes the release price of the X7900 only a $321 difference; although that's the same price as the now-depricated X7800, too, so theoretically, the X7900 should have cost more before now as well.)

mdriftmeyer
Aug 24, 2007, 01:52 AM
The problem comes in that the X7900 was just released at the same price as the X7800. The X7800 hasn't seen an official price cut, but a T7800 (same basic chip,) was released at the same time as the X7900, at $530. (Basically, the X7900 has caused all the chips below it to drop a price notch, with the former X7800 now being called the T7800 as part of the price drop.)

What's really amazing is that the X7900 is $851, while the T7700 (the 2.4 GHz chip that the iMac ships with stock,) is $361 (source (http://vr-zone.com/articles/Intel_Mobile_CPU_Price_Cut_In_Sep/4980.html)). That means that Apple is charging a $250 upgrade fee for a chip that costs $490 more. (In all fairness, the T7700 is only hitting $361 officially at the same time the X7900 is officially released; until now, the T7700 was $530, which makes the release price of the X7900 only a $321 difference; although that's the same price as the now-depricated X7800, too, so theoretically, the X7900 should have cost more before now as well.)

Price varies with volume. For every 10k chips bought by Apple they'll get a different price point than a single cpu for a consumer. This goes for any OEM.

sammyman
Aug 24, 2007, 02:08 AM
If the frontside bus is 800, why is the current iMac loaded with 667 RAM??

BKKbill
Aug 24, 2007, 02:43 AM
Worth the money? I thought so. I'm typing this on the glossy screen of my brand spanking new 24" running a 2.8 GHz C2D outfitted with maxed ram and a 750 GB HD.

Here is my thinking on the purchase. Most of my use for this machine will be for Video, Illustration and Photography. Considering the iMac cannot be upgraded in the sense that a pro model can, I think getting the maxium specs isn't a bad plan. It will translate to a longer useful lifespan for the product and better performance.

In terms of what runs this pup-7800 or 7900-it doesn't really matter because Steve was right-it screams. The glossy screen takes a bit of getting used to, but I can say, with confidence, it is a step up from anything I've used to date including my office G5 mac tower. I don't game, so I have noting to say on that front. In terms of performance though, it is really an astounding machine. Even emulated (Rosetta) apps work better than on my fastest PPC. The FW 800 works perfectly and the second screen makes this something of a dream system for me.

My surprises for the new iMac included, the speakers, which sound better than any machine I've ever heard, the brightness of the display and the thinness. I know they say it's slim, but you gotta see it to appreciate it. So far I'm very happy with this machine and would recommend it to anyone who wants to upgrade their computing life.

Thanks for the input good to hear about the speakers . As you say the iMac cannot be upgraded in the sense that a pro model can. I will be getting an iMac as soon as Leopard comes out and I'm thinking the higher specs. would be a good move.

obione
Aug 24, 2007, 03:29 AM
It reads X7900 in intel´s MacCPUID.

http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/1107.htm

Sesshi
Aug 24, 2007, 03:48 AM
So we end up where I said we would. Manufacturers will "normally" sell the X7900 as a 2.8GHz part and interested parties in the know will buy them for their overclocking performance, taking all blame if something goes awry.

No - factory overclocked and machines sold as overclockable are warranted when overclocked.

You know, I have to take my hat off to Apple.

If any other manufacturer drops an X7800 or X7900 into a desktop, people are going to be wondering a) why they've crippled a desktop with a laptop chipset and b) why it's not overclocked. As I said, the iMac can have the doors blown off it in terms of overall performance by a Dell or similar desktop (an actual desktop) costing practically half as much, and it's going to be just as quiet in real life as you're not going to have the system unit sitting on your desk.

Instead, for the Jobsitized it's "Hooray! it's an Extreme something which we've got before anyone else! Praise Apple!"

Ah... Applemaniacs, it's so cute.

pimmie
Aug 24, 2007, 05:47 AM
As I said, the iMac can have the doors blown off it in terms of overall performance by a Dell or similar desktop (an actual desktop) costing practically half as much, and it's going to be just as quiet in real life as you're not going to have the system unit sitting on your desk.
Sesshi, you obviously look at things from a very different perspective than most Mac users (and our Great Leader). I for one am a pro who's always used the latest and greatest beast Apple created (starting in the Macintosh II era, to Macintosh FX all the way to the Mac Pro quad core). This is the very first time I'm going "consumer" and so far it looks great (24" iMac C2D Extreme). It's finally quiet in the office, less heat being produced, and not very obvious for many 'hardcore PC fans': this iMac uses about a third of the power that my Mac Pro does.
Instead of suggesting that we're zealots, could it be you just don't quite get it? Oh, and here's another newsfact for you: like many other pros, I hardly ever did any upgrading on my machines ever, I just bought the new one with better specs. So I don't care a *#$! that this machine isn't really upgradable (apart from the 4GB of RAM I plugged in).

CWallace
Aug 24, 2007, 07:05 AM
If the frontside bus is 800, why is the current iMac loaded with 667 RAM??

Because the memory bus is 667MHz in the Santa Rosa platform that the MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac all use.

CWallace
Aug 24, 2007, 07:06 AM
ou know, I have to take my hat off to Apple.

If any other manufacturer drops an X7800 or X7900 into a desktop, people are going to be wondering a) why they've crippled a desktop with a laptop chipset and b) why it's not overclocked. As I said, the iMac can have the doors blown off it in terms of overall performance by a Dell or similar desktop (an actual desktop) costing practically half as much, and it's going to be just as quiet in real life as you're not going to have the system unit sitting on your desk.

Instead, for the Jobsitized it's "Hooray! it's an Extreme something which we've got before anyone else! Praise Apple!"

Ah... Applemaniacs, it's so cute.

I don't buy Apple products for the hardware specs... ;)

Eidorian
Aug 24, 2007, 08:09 AM
Sorry? The only $500 Dell laptop I can find is this one: http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspn_1501?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

and it comes with a Radeon Xpress1150. Are you saying the 1150 is better than the HD 2600? :confused:Xpress 1150 > GMA950

Sesshi
Aug 24, 2007, 08:25 AM
Sesshi, you obviously look at things from a very different perspective than most Mac users (and our Great Leader).

From what I've seen so far, I clearly do, pimmie.

I for one am a pro who's always used the latest and greatest beast Apple created (starting in the Macintosh II era, to Macintosh FX all the way to the Mac Pro quad core). This is the very first time I'm going "consumer" and so far it looks great (24" iMac C2D Extreme). It's finally quiet in the office, less heat being produced, and not very obvious for many 'hardcore PC fans': this iMac uses about a third of the power that my Mac Pro does.
Instead of suggesting that we're zealots, could it be you just don't quite get it? Oh, and here's another newsfact for you: like many other pros, I hardly ever did any upgrading on my machines ever, I just bought the new one with better specs. So I don't care a *#$! that this machine isn't really upgradable (apart from the 4GB of RAM I plugged in).

I'm not actually a 'hardcore PC fan'. I don't actually spend hours obsessing over heatsinks, etc although I do know a fair amount of the mechanics of all that stuff simply because I'm an informed consumer, heavy professional user and enthusiast. If I was a hardcore PC fan, I would for example have built my own overclocked desktop rather than buy a Dell XPS 710 H2C off the shelf - which by the way rivals similar Apple hardware for quietness, despite having far more muscle for general purpose entertainment than any Apple machine in existence.

Rather, I just happen to seek the best machines out there for work and play, which is one of the reasons why I mowed my way through several examples of the entire Apple range last year. Apparently like you, upgradeability over time is not a big deal for me either, although initial capability which might require an expansion capacity beyond the stock specification is important - I replace each category of laptop I own on a roughly yearly basis, and desktops on a 12-24 month schedule. However when the desktop machine is effectively behind at release as my soon-to-be delivered X7900 iMac will be (it's also replacing a Pro as the software I run on it does not require the Pro), some degree of upgradability would not go amiss I feel.

Even now, surprising as it may seem, I'm platform agnostic to a great degree - I have important applications running under both OSX and Windows - but it doesn't change the fact that I see Apple desktop/laptop hardware as successfully meeting, broadly speaking, the needs of a less informed, more superficial and less professionally / otherwise demanding clientele. If you take offence from that, I apologise - as I said, it's a generalisation and it may or may not be accurate.

I get 'it' fine - form over function. I'm happy to buy into that to do certain things as long as I have more viable options for doing everything else open to me.

Oh, and I started with the IIci.

sammyman
Aug 24, 2007, 09:46 AM
Because the memory bus is 667MHz in the Santa Rosa platform that the MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac all use.

That sucks! Are they going to figure that one out soon?

Eidorian
Aug 24, 2007, 09:48 AM
That sucks! Are they going to figure that one out soon?Figure what out? We'll probably see DDR3-800 in Montevina.

BKKbill
Aug 24, 2007, 11:43 AM
Sesshi, you obviously look at things from a very different perspective than most Mac users (and our Great Leader). I for one am a pro who's always used the latest and greatest beast Apple created (starting in the Macintosh II era, to Macintosh FX all the way to the Mac Pro quad core). This is the very first time I'm going "consumer" and so far it looks great (24" iMac C2D Extreme). It's finally quiet in the office, less heat being produced, and not very obvious for many 'hardcore PC fans': this iMac uses about a third of the power that my Mac Pro does.
Instead of suggesting that we're zealots, could it be you just don't quite get it? Oh, and here's another newsfact for you: like many other pros, I hardly ever did any upgrading on my machines ever, I just bought the new one with better specs. So I don't care a *#$! that this machine isn't really upgradable (apart from the 4GB of RAM I plugged in).

I know what your saying means something to you but could you please try restating it again in a less antagonistic way so it means something to anybody else. Thanks so much. Oh and could you please tell me who this Great Leader you speak of is, could this be a Bush l or possibly a Job, just asking. :p Oh just so you know where I'm coming from I started with an Apple II in about 1978 and it was unreal that was possible you could save anything with tape. And as you say at the start of your tirade your right we do look at this from a very different perspective. But don't you think you can convey what your intention are without being cruddy.

Anonymous Freak
Aug 24, 2007, 02:47 PM
That sucks! Are they going to figure that one out soon?

Not that it really matters.

Dual channel 667 MHz RAM provides 10 GB/s of bandwidth (5 GB/s per channel,) while the 800 MHz front side bus only has 6.4 GB/s of bandwidth. If you were only using a single channel of RAM, having the speed of the memory match the front side bus would be important, but with dual-channel, it's not as urgent.

(The extra RAM bandwidth gets used by PCI devices, such as the video chip. Although with discrete graphics, this isn't as important. The extra bandwidth is most important on integrated graphics chipsets like the MacBook and mini.)

blueskyrocket
Aug 24, 2007, 03:27 PM
[Apple should have a lease program :D[/QUOTE]

I have been saying this for years now. A lease program for Apple products financed by that barrel of cash Apple has.
Cheers Pete

Rocketman
Aug 24, 2007, 03:42 PM
That's not an answer. Is it or is it not too hot for the 17" MBP?

I read all those links and they tell me nothing about maximum TDP for the 17" MBP. Can someone say it will or won't work?

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/

The TDP for the maximum processor curently used in a MBP17 is 65 watts.
The processors of interest have much higher than that: 105-130 watts.
Penryn due to die-shrink will lower the TDP per compute power ratio ~20%.
So once we have a Penryn laptop chip we will have quad-core MBP.
We might get lucky and have a crippled frequency, dual core version for iPhone!

Rocketman

Eidorian
Aug 24, 2007, 03:45 PM
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/

The TDP for the maximum processor curently used in a MBP17 is 65 watts.
The processors of interest have much higher than that: 105-130 watts.
Penryn due to die-shrink will lower the TDP per compute power ratio ~20%.
So once we have a Penryn laptop chip we will have quad-core MBP.
We might get lucky and have a crippled frequency, dual core version for iPhone!

RocketmanNow where did you find that? Merom has a TDP of 35w.

Rocketman
Aug 24, 2007, 03:52 PM
Now where did you find that? Merom has a TDP of 35w.

The link I provided says in part:

CPU Model Clock Speed FSB L2 Cache TDP Cores
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 1333MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.60GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 1333MHz 2MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 2.33GHz 1333MHz 2MB 65W 2

So if that is wrong, so am I. If you are saying a MBP17 uses a 35W chip, that only reemphasizes that the current quad-cores are wayyy too hot and that the new Penryns may have some sort of frequency cripple (underclock) tradeoff for more cores. I invite any actual data or links and look forward to being proven wrong and corrected :)

Rocketman

Eidorian
Aug 24, 2007, 03:54 PM
The link I provided says in part:

CPU ModelClock Speed

FSB

L2 Cache

TDP

Cores

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz 1333MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 1333MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.60GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 1333MHz 2MB 65W 2
Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 2.33GHz 1333MHz 2MB 65W 2And yet those are the "E6xxx" Series and not the "T7xxx" Series that the MacBook Pro uses.

CWallace
Aug 24, 2007, 04:00 PM
Now where did you find that? Merom has a TDP of 35w.

The figures Rocketman are referring to are for the desktop Core2's and Core2 Extreme's, which have much higher TDPs then the Mobile products.

The trick will be what the TDP of a four-core Memrom will be, assuming there is a four-core Memrom model. I expect the TDP of such a thing would be more then 35w. ;)

Rocketman
Aug 24, 2007, 04:01 PM
And yet those are the "E6xxx" Series and not the "T7xxx" Series that the MacBook Pro uses.

Thanks. OIC

http://www.geek.com/core-2-duo-t7600-merom-gets-benchmarked/?rfp=dta

Penryn Googled:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=penryn+tdp+watts&btnG=Search

Rocketman

Today's news:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/22/intel-readying-slew-of-45nm-penryn-mobile-cpus/

Eidorian
Aug 24, 2007, 04:02 PM
The figures Rocketman are referring to are for the desktop Core2's and Core2 Extreme's, which have much higher TDPs then the Mobile products.

The trick will be what the TDP of a four-core Memrom will be, assuming there is a four-core Memrom model. I expect the TDP of such a thing would be more then 35w. ;)I understand the data that Rocketman is using. The problem is that its for the desktop processors. The current MacBook Pros are known to handle Yonah and Merom processors.

You're going to need the quad core version to fit somewhere near the 35w TDP of those processors unless there's a major redesign.

Thanks. OIC

http://www.geek.com/core-2-duo-t7600-merom-gets-benchmarked/?rfp=dta

Penryn Googled:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=penryn+tdp+watts&btnG=Search

RocketmanNo problem.

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=3000

It's possible that later stepping processors could lead to a quad that would conform to those specifications.

flopticalcube
Aug 24, 2007, 09:59 PM
Xpress 1150 > GMA950

Oh! I thought this was an iMac thread. :rolleyes:

Ok, the 1150 beats the GMA950 by about 40 3dmark06. Whoppeee! This is one of the things I really dislike about comparisons, you could choose just about any aspect and come up With something. Dell sells a $1800 laptop with a 1.8GHz CPU and a $1300 laptop with no wireless n! Pointless comparisons...

SMM
Aug 25, 2007, 02:23 PM
I take my hat off to all the rest of you (seemingly), who have figured all of these new chip models out. After 25 years in the industry, I can truthfully admit, Intel has me totally confused. It looks like I am going to have to start reading from the Yonah forward.