PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming Mobile Intel Penryn Prototype Previewed




MacRumors
Dec 2, 2007, 09:30 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Taiwanese site Coolaler previewed (http://www.coolaler.com/content/node/1785) an early version of Intel's upcoming Penryn X9000 CPU. A translation of some of the findings was provided (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4440&Itemid=1) by Fudzilla.

The CPU previewed was an engineering build of the Penryn X9000 CPU clocked at 2.8GHz. Along with the 45-nm die shrink, the upcoming mobile CPUs increase the L2 cache, and boost processor speeds. The 3dmark06 (http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark06/) benchmark for the production sample 2.8GHz processor gives a CPU score of 2569, which compares to scores (http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectsearch.jsp) of 2106-2339 for the current top-of-the-line 2.6GHz CPU available as a build-to-order open in MacBook Pros.

Obviously, not too much weight should be given to benchmarks for early engineering sample CPUs, but the release of new mobile processors may trigger an upgrade cycle for Apple's MacBook Pro laptops, which have not seen substantial updates since June.

The new mobile Penryn processors are expected to be released in January 2008 (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/20/january-2008-macbook-pros-with-penryn-processors/).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/02/upcoming-mobile-intel-penryn-prototype-previewed/)



Darkroom
Dec 2, 2007, 09:32 PM
january iMac update? yes please...

miketcool
Dec 2, 2007, 09:33 PM
No new MBP for me, but I would like a a desktop in the next few months...

Stella
Dec 2, 2007, 09:38 PM
I'm waiting upon the next mobile processors. thus I'm very interested in the next batch... assuming the price has been adjusted to the current Canadian currency. I don't mind paying a fair price, I dislike being ripped off, otherwise, I may as well live back in ( Rip off ) UK.

daddywags214
Dec 2, 2007, 09:43 PM
those will be hot!

plumbingandtech
Dec 2, 2007, 09:48 PM
Why?

Shouldn't the decrease in die size help eleviate that?

BKKbill
Dec 2, 2007, 09:50 PM
And the march for speed continues. Onward and upward.

basesloaded190
Dec 2, 2007, 09:53 PM
hopefully we will see the very soon in the mbp then very shortly after the imacs then eventually the macbook lineup

OscarAlert
Dec 2, 2007, 09:54 PM
IMAC UPDATE PLEASE APPLE I BEG YOU !


now that thats out of my system....those cpus look great!

WHY ARE THEY STILL 800MHZ Bus tho can some one explain maybe?

IzzyJG99
Dec 2, 2007, 09:57 PM
This bodes well for me when I plan on getting my new iMac in about 10 months. By then there very well may be a 3.0 Ghz BTO option.

thePolitikPoet
Dec 2, 2007, 10:02 PM
Who cares about the MBP (so people i guess). I looking to switch to a Mac early next year but the vid card and processors are keeping me back. Want to wait for Penryn and acording to the update cycles on MacRumors if i wait 3 months i might get a better deal....But i might not be able to wait that long it would suck if there is a update the next month i buy my new system

bigbossbmb
Dec 2, 2007, 10:03 PM
Guess what? Intel will announce these in January, but they won't ship til mid/late February....

The new Xeons for the Mac Pro were "released" last month and nobody is shipping them (the faster 1600mhz FSB ones) yet. My G5 are on its last legs and I am in desperate need for new MPs to start shipping.

I don't doubt that Apple can/probably will announce new iMacs/MBPs at MacWorld. But don't put too much stock in them shipping at that time.

thagomizer
Dec 2, 2007, 10:11 PM
IMAC UPDATE PLEASE APPLE I BEG YOU !

WHY ARE THEY STILL 800MHZ Bus tho can some one explain maybe?

1066MHz bus for mobile systems isn't due until Q2 (probably late Q2), with the "Montevina" chipset. CPU speeds on this platform will top out at 3.06GHz, and allow the use of 800MHz memory.

Just like Santa Rosa chipset improvements came several months after the introduction of Merom CPUs, the Montevina chipset will come several months after the introduction of Penryn CPUs.

emotion
Dec 2, 2007, 10:28 PM
Serve me up a T8100-based 12" powerbook replacement Apple and I'll be happy.

Rocketman
Dec 2, 2007, 10:30 PM
This is real news.

This makes iPhone+ practical.

This makes MacBook Nano practical.

This combined with wimax chips makes for broadband anywhere.

This combined with 3G makes for broadband mobile.

This combined with EDGE mobile makes for anywhere access at above modem speeds.

Rocketman

mikeyman13
Dec 2, 2007, 10:42 PM
Okay - So I am looking at buying an imac and mb as gifts, yet the with all of the recent rumors and news the question still remains: how soon can I expect upgrades to come? I would hate to give a picture of an imac/mb and say, "upgrade coming soon, you will be glad I didn't buy it now," only to have upgrades come 4 months later. Any thoughts?

TurboSC
Dec 2, 2007, 10:42 PM
interesting, Mid-Janurary is going to be a very exciting time now..

esquared
Dec 2, 2007, 10:54 PM
patiently waiting for new Macpro, hoping they ship close to announcement date. Didn't they just bring out new iMac's? What's wrong with you people?

suneohair
Dec 2, 2007, 11:52 PM
You won't be seeing these at Macworld.

Eidorian
Dec 3, 2007, 12:20 AM
25w TDP is nice for slimmer, cooler machines.

JayLenochiniMac
Dec 3, 2007, 12:23 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
The 3dmark06 (http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark06/) benchmark for the production sample 2.8GHz processor gives a CPU score of 2569, which compares to scores (http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectsearch.jsp) of 2106-2339 for the current top-of-the-line 2.6GHz CPU available as a build-to-order open in MacBook Pros.
Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/02/upcoming-mobile-intel-penryn-prototype-previewed/)

That's nice, but will they even place the 2.8GHz X9000 in the MacBook Pro? It has the same TDP of 44W as X7900, the current Core 2 Extreme processor in the high-end iMac, and they didn't include it in the MBP due to heat reasons.

FX120
Dec 3, 2007, 12:40 AM
That's nice, but will they even place the 2.8GHz X9000 in the MacBook Pro? It has the same TDP of 44W as X7800, the current Core 2 Extreme processor in the high-end iMac, and they didn't include it in the MBP due to heat reasons.

Maybe if Apple would get off their ass and actually design a decent cooling solution for their laptops...

SirOmega
Dec 3, 2007, 12:41 AM
IF this is true, I can see where these chips are going - the 2.1GHz and 2.4GHz 3MB chips in the MacBooks and the 2.5 and 2.6GHz 6MB chips in the MBPs. We could see the announcement at MWSF, along with MacPro bumps. Though it seems a little too much at once.

Perhaps we see the announcement for MBPs and MacPros at MWSF (with the "BIG" announcements being Movie Rentals and the Thin MacBook) and the MB updates later in the month or Feb (stealth update).

However, I don't think those chip speeds are accurate. It just doesn't seem right. If anything I'd expect 2.8, 2.6, 2.4, 2.2 and 2.1 speeds.

matthewHUB
Dec 3, 2007, 01:21 AM
i find all these numbers of chips hard to keep track of. So we've shrunk to a 45nm chipset. Does that mean lower temperatures? more cores? i'm a little confused. When do we see a reduction in wattage for these chips? It's getting to the point where a 2.8ghz processor in a macbook pro will do everything i want it to at a fast enough speed. I'd rather have longer battery life then a faster computer. hell.. i'm still using a 1ghz PB G4 and i won't get rid of it yet as it's still coping with everything i need it for absolutely fine. Runs Leopard great! Give me 6-7 hours of battery life and i have a reason for upgrading. I'm on my 3rd battery now and it's dead - going to be buying a 4th. UGH

winterspan
Dec 3, 2007, 01:50 AM
i find all these numbers of chips hard to keep track of. So we've shrunk to a 45nm chipset. Does that mean lower temperatures? more cores? i'm a little confused. When do we see a reduction in wattage for these chips? It's getting to the point where a 2.8ghz processor in a macbook pro will do everything i want it to at a fast enough speed. I'd rather have longer battery life then a faster computer. hell.. i'm still using a 1ghz PB G4 and i won't get rid of it yet as it's still coping with everything i need it for absolutely fine. Runs Leopard great! Give me 6-7 hours of battery life and i have a reason for upgrading. I'm on my 3rd battery now and it's dead - going to be buying a 4th. UGH

45nm is the size of the process technology Intel uses to make their chips, usually referred to as a "die-shrink". Basically, 45nm is the size of the smallest components on the chips. This decrease in physical size allows the chip to have a higher transistor density, use less energy, be more energy efficient per mhz, etc. The decreased power consumption allows the chips to run at a higher clock speed and consume the same amount of energy or keep/lower the clock speed and gain better battery life for a laptop.

Right now Intel has three groups of Core 2 mobile processors.
The standard Core2 Duo mobile processors which have a power rating of ~34W. There are also two categories of lower voltage chips which run much slower and cooler, but they are not used in most laptops except for small subnotebooks. (Intel Core2 Duo Low voltage (LV) and Ultra-Low Voltage (ULV)

The new "Penryn" standard line of processors will run at 35W and 29W.
In addition to the two low voltage lines, there is a new category of "medium-voltage" processors which have a 25W TDP, but which retain most of the speed, cache size, FSB speed, etc.. Which means they may show up standard laptops. I think these will be the best fit for a subnotebook or long running macbook.

In addition to the die-shrink, Penryn brings many new enhancements to the chip architecture itself, including SSE4 which will speed up multimedia-type operations (video encoding, audio encoding, rendering) for applications that are updated for it.

Stridder44
Dec 3, 2007, 01:50 AM
These couldn't come to the MBP sooner. I am really itching to get a notebook.


MB's sucks due to lack of graphics card.

However the current MBP's are approaching their end lifecycle.


*weeps*

je1ani
Dec 3, 2007, 01:52 AM
Hopefully these new chips will drive down the prices of older models.. I wouldn't mind picking up another SR MBP or a 2.33 at a much cheaper price;)

RoDe
Dec 3, 2007, 01:55 AM
I currently own a MBP 2.4Ghz model. I'll be trading it in soon. But I'll only be buying an MBP back if it is sufficiently updated. I don't want some MBP with a little fairy dust sprinkled over it.

I want a proper update.

I want a different case material, the aluminium is starting to show it's trade mark annoyances twisting and bending, and no I don't throw it around. I just hate it. Carbon Fibre please.

It could be a little lighter as well.

CommodityFetish
Dec 3, 2007, 01:58 AM
i'm still using a 1ghz PB G4 and i won't get rid of it yet as it's still coping with everything i need it for absolutely fine. Runs Leopard great!

That's good to know. I'm on the same 1ghz PB G4, and I was wondering how Leopard would do on it. How much RAM do you have?

I'm looking forward to seeing what's offered in Jan (whole new MBP line-up perhaps?), because my battery is dead as well, and I haven't upgraded to Leopard, and my hard drive is getting full, and maybe I could use some more RAM for Leopard...

So maybe it's time for a new laptop after 4 years on this one. But I want something lighter than a 15" and I don't want the glossy screen of the macbook. I'm hoping the MB Slim will be affordable... but I'm not holding my breath.

I may need to hold out for the next iteration, and it would be nice to know I could upgrade to Leopard in the meantime...

Wild-Bill
Dec 3, 2007, 02:17 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

...the release of new mobile processors may trigger an upgrade cycle for Apple's MacBook Pro laptops, which have not seen substantial updates since June.



Meanwhile, Mac Pro desktops have not seen substantial updates since...........ever. (17 months).

The MBP is more likely to get yet another update, :rolleyes: and the desktop Penryn's are already out. Way to go Apple. :mad:

odedia
Dec 3, 2007, 03:48 AM
CPUs are fast enough.

Let's attack the real problems with computers nowadays, ok?

We call it the hard drive. Time to send the only moving mechanical item in our machine into history, and bring on the flash based computers.

I'm waiting for January. :)

aswitcher
Dec 3, 2007, 04:37 AM
CPUs are fast enough.

Let's attack the real problems with computers nowadays, ok?

We call it the hard drive. Time to send the only moving mechanical item in our machine into history, and bring on the flash based computers.

I'm waiting for January. :)

Yeah, chip bumps are no longer the big news for speed. Having 8GB flash for the OS and programs, as well as a nice hdd for real space would really improve performance.

DoFoT9
Dec 3, 2007, 04:44 AM
Yeah, chip bumps are no longer the big news for speed. Having 8GB flash for the OS and programs, as well as a nice hdd for real space would really improve performance.

now that is not a bad idea!!!! thats actually a really good idea, store the OS on flash memory.

i just wish that super-dooper PRAM 1gb chips would come out ;) or something similar lol*


*clearly there is no PRAM...im just kidding

Analog Kid
Dec 3, 2007, 05:28 AM
Why are they still 800Mhz bus tho can some one explain maybe?
If I had to guess-- power. The chipset and memory are a huge power consumer, clocking faster will just drain away the battery. They can squeeze a little more speed out of cache, apparently, before going to faster memory so they took that step first. My guess is they'll boost the memory bus when DDR3 goes mainstream.
Maybe if Apple would get off their ass and actually design a decent cooling solution for their laptops...
It's not just about heat, it's about battery life and size. Apple is fixated on making things thin. More power means more cooling and bigger batteries-- all of which leads to thick. My vote would be keep the same depth and boost the run time, but Apple seems to be happy with their current battery life and are more interested in slimming things down.

DoFoT9
Dec 3, 2007, 05:30 AM
It's not just about heat, it's about battery life and size. Apple is fixated on making things thin. More power means more cooling and bigger batteries-- all of which leads to thick. My vote would be keep the same depth and boost the run time, but Apple seems to be happy with their current battery life and are more interested in slimming things down.

surely the batteries atm arent maxed out with full power/capacity/wattage etcetc??? why cant they put a 9-cell battery option in like dell? i would love extra battery life.

twoodcc
Dec 3, 2007, 05:51 AM
seems like a nice update ;) hopefully we'll see them in action in january

gnasher729
Dec 3, 2007, 05:58 AM
45nm is the size of the process technology Intel uses to make their chips, usually referred to as a "die-shrink". Basically, 45nm is the size of the smallest components on the chips. This decrease in physical size allows the chip to have a higher transistor density, use less energy, be more energy efficient per mhz, etc. The decreased power consumption allows the chips to run at a higher clock speed and consume the same amount of energy or keep/lower the clock speed and gain better battery life for a laptop.

Right now Intel has three groups of Core 2 mobile processors.
The standard Core2 Duo mobile processors which have a power rating of ~34W. There are also two categories of lower voltage chips which run much slower and cooler, but they are not used in most laptops except for small subnotebooks. (Intel Core2 Duo Low voltage (LV) and Ultra-Low Voltage (ULV)

The new "Penryn" standard line of processors will run at 35W and 29W.
In addition to the two low voltage lines, there is a new category of "medium-voltage" processors which have a 25W TDP, but which retain most of the speed, cache size, FSB speed, etc.. Which means they may show up standard laptops. I think these will be the best fit for a subnotebook or long running macbook.

In addition to the die-shrink, Penryn brings many new enhancements to the chip architecture itself, including SSE4 which will speed up multimedia-type operations (video encoding, audio encoding, rendering) for applications that are updated for it.

Just something to put these ultra-low-power chips into perspective: There are two different power consumptions. There is "TDP" = thermal design power. That is the maximum power that the chip could ever use and transform into heat, so the designer has to make sure that the computer works if that heat is produced 24 hours a day. And then there is how much the processor needs at any point in time; that is what empties your battery.

The faster chips _can_ run fast and use lots of power, but they can also run slow and use much less power. The low power chips _always_ run slow and use much less power. That doesn't mean they use much less power than the current chips if both run slow. The main difference is that the designer can make the fans smaller because the low power chip _cannot_ run fast and consume lots of power.

gnasher729
Dec 3, 2007, 06:02 AM
Hopefully these new chips will drive down the prices of older models.. I wouldn't mind picking up another SR MBP or a 2.33 at a much cheaper price;)

Type "Intel Price List" into google, then have a look at the price of a Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) or even Core Solo chip. They aren't cheaper. They are actually more expensive than the Core 2 Duo chips.

Just because Intel produces a newer, better chip doesn't mean the older ones get any cheaper to produce.

jragosta
Dec 3, 2007, 06:20 AM
Okay - So I am looking at buying an imac and mb as gifts, yet the with all of the recent rumors and news the question still remains: how soon can I expect upgrades to come? I would hate to give a picture of an imac/mb and say, "upgrade coming soon, you will be glad I didn't buy it now," only to have upgrades come 4 months later. Any thoughts?

As always, don't get caught up in these games. If you want/need a computer now, buy it. If you wait because something faster might be coming, you'll never get a computer.

Not to mention, of course, that this mattered in the days when you could buy a 4 MHz computer today or an 8 MHz computer next month. The difference between today's MPB and iMac and the next speed bump won't make a hill of beans difference to most users.

Cloudsurfer
Dec 3, 2007, 06:22 AM
Why does Penryn skip 2,2 and 2,3 GHz?

Anyway, I think the next MBP will be bumped up to 2,4 for the low-end model and 2,6 for the two higher-end models. Hopefully, the lower-end MBP will also see an increase in VRAM to 256 MB (with the others recieving a bump up to 512 MB).

deathshrub
Dec 3, 2007, 06:24 AM
Let's not walk before we can run here, people. Let the penryns come out in the form of the Mac Pro, and then we can worry about the "mobile" variety.

daneoni
Dec 3, 2007, 06:51 AM
Doesnt this mean the MBPs will get the chips first and then later on the MBs. Basically its safe to say the MacBooks won't jump to any new processor upgrades soon

Because they currently have a 4MB cache and going to 3MB would be a downgrade?

Topper
Dec 3, 2007, 07:48 AM
but the release of new mobile processors may trigger an upgrade cycle for Apple's MacBook Pro laptops, which have not seen substantial updates since June

OMG, please say it ain't so! A whole 6 months, you say?

There hasn't been a substantial update for the Mac Pro since August of 2006. That's 16 months.

How about a new Mac Pro first, then worry about the MacBook Pro!

shawnce
Dec 3, 2007, 08:25 AM
How about a new Mac Pro first,...

Magic Eight Ball says... "Soon"

dal20402
Dec 3, 2007, 08:31 AM
surely the batteries atm arent maxed out with full power/capacity/wattage etcetc??? why cant they put a 9-cell battery option in like dell? i would love extra battery life.

The batteries are most certainly "maxed out." They are the hardest component of the entire laptop to engineer. Apple has been getting steadily more capacity out of them in each revision for years. Unfortunately, people keep asking for brighter screens and faster, hotter CPUs, so battery life stays about the same. (It's almost identical between the SR MBPs and the last-generation HR PowerBooks.)

The high-capacity batteries are physically bigger and weigh more. Have you seen the tumor that sticks out of Dell or Lenovo laptops when they're equipped with the big battery?

Maybe if Apple would get off their ass and actually design a decent cooling solution for their laptops...

In other words, you want Apple to repeal the laws of physics? They are already offering the lightest and thinnest high-power laptops in the business. The only "laptops" using the 44W CPU are battery-challenged, 9+lb. monsters.

Apple already pushes tons of air through the case, and uses the case itself as a big heat sink (a major reason for the aluminum). Pushing more air would require more and noisier fans and more ugly vent holes. Do I really need to tell you why liquid-cooling a laptop is a bad idea? ;)

and the desktop Penryn's are already out.

No, they're not. They've only been announced. HP and Dell have announced machines, but they're not shipping yet. Apple will announce when it can actually ship. Getting mad at Apple for not shipping a machine when Intel hasn't provided the chips for the machine is pretty pointless.

andiwm2003
Dec 3, 2007, 08:46 AM
OMG, please say it ain't so! A whole 6 months, you say?

There hasn't been a substantial update for the Mac Pro since August of 2006. That's 16 months.

How about a new Mac Pro first, then worry about the MacBook Pro!

don't you get it? the mac pro get's updated when the macbook pro is quadcore/octocore. then the macpro will be updated to match the macbook's performance. unless of course apple need all the engineers to work on the iphone 2.:(

i'm waiting till end 2008. hopefully by then a quadcore mbp with hybrid hd and decent wifi reception as desktop replacement is available. till then my G4 mac's will do just fine.

Clive At Five
Dec 3, 2007, 08:56 AM
Y'know, screw CPU speeds. I bet a faster FSB would do wonders for this system.

Maybe if Apple would get off their ass and actually design a decent cooling solution for their laptops...

...and that too.

Hey! A "newbie" with something insightful to say! That's a first. Still, it's a little on the bitter side... Pretty soon we'll have you cranked up to "scathing." ;)

-Clive

Squonk
Dec 3, 2007, 09:14 AM
CPUs are fast enough.

Let's attack the real problems with computers nowadays, ok?

We call it the hard drive. Time to send the only moving mechanical item in our machine into history, and bring on the flash based computers.

I'm waiting for January. :)

If only Intel made hard drives, then maybe they'd throw some R&D that way...

Digital Skunk
Dec 3, 2007, 09:52 AM
I might have to wait for the next update to the MacBook Pro. I am really hoping to get a dual 2.8GHz 17" MacBook Pro. Don't know if I can hold out till May or June for that. Knowing Apple it won't come until WWDC anyway.

I really REALLY hope that the MBP would get some better technology than the current offering. I am hoping for the dual drives. One SSD and another HDD. One for fast boots and the other for holding the real information. And how about some built in 3G and a new latching system.

Spencer818
Dec 3, 2007, 10:02 AM
This may be stupid question but I have the current iMac with the BTO 2.8 ghz processor. As far as I knew the iMacs used a mobile chipset but according to that chart, the current fastest mobile processor is a 2.6 ghz. What am I missing?

goosnarrggh
Dec 3, 2007, 10:07 AM
This is real news.

This makes iPhone+ practical.
Maybe. I'd be surprised.

The ARM11 core supposed to be in use in the iPhone is characterized as requiring a worst-case 0.45 milliwatts per megahertz. Assuming a 620 MHz operating speed (the maximum characterized speed I could find in a quick search) that works out to 0.279 W.

These new Intel CPUs are rated at a lowball figure of around 25 W. That's almost a hundredfold increase in electrical requirements over the ARM processors currently believed to be in use. You'd need a notebook-class battery in order for it to be functional for any useful amount of time.

But maybe I'm jumping the gun with me criticism here... How big are you expecting an iPhone+ to be?

Eidorian
Dec 3, 2007, 10:13 AM
This may be stupid question but I have the current iMac with the BTO 2.8 ghz processor. As far as I knew the iMacs used a mobile chipset but according to that chart, the current fastest mobile processor is a 2.6 ghz. What am I missing?The current iMac uses the 2.8 GHz X7900.

masse
Dec 3, 2007, 10:40 AM
But maybe I'm jumping the gun with me criticism here... How big are you expecting an iPhone+ to be?

His post was sarcastic..

Digital Skunk
Dec 3, 2007, 10:41 AM
This may be stupid question but I have the current iMac with the BTO 2.8 ghz processor. As far as I knew the iMacs used a mobile chipset but according to that chart, the current fastest mobile processor is a 2.6 ghz. What am I missing?

The processor runs too hot from what I hear. That may keep me waiting for a dual 2.8GHz chip in the MBP. Cooling the thing would be terrible.

Digital Skunk
Dec 3, 2007, 11:04 AM
Who cares about the MBP.

Just about everyone waiting to get something faster than the current SR MBPs and anyone that doesn't want to pay full price for 6 months+ old technology.

IMAC UPDATE PLEASE APPLE I BEG YOU !


now that thats out of my system....those cpus look great!

WHY ARE THEY STILL 800MHZ Bus tho can some one explain maybe?

The iMac just got updated and wont' see anything until April or May. It just got updated not too long ago. Apple needs to update its PRO systems before it even touches the consumer stuff.

Maybe if Apple would get off their ass and actually design a decent cooling solution for their laptops...

Yeah.... they do need to do that, but I am sure it's pretty hard trying to cool off a machine that's 1" thin. I would rather have a machine that's just as thick as the MacBook with a better cooling system so I can shove that dual 2.8GHz processor in it.

Butthead
Dec 3, 2007, 11:44 AM
X = Extreme series which cost $1k quantity as well as having higher TDP, meaning likely too hot for Apple laptops.

If engineering samples are only that much faster for the X-series, then T9500 Penryn's will likely only give minor speed bump :(...wait for Monteviña chipset before upgrading.

ckurowic
Dec 3, 2007, 11:54 AM
those will be hot!

How? I don't see a significant difference in the specs, and its not like Apple would put the 2.8 in the MacBooks anyway, only the MBP. I just don't see how the same bus speed, a higher top end by 200MHz, and 2 more MB in the cache is going to give you that "NEATO!" performance boost.

JayLenochiniMac
Dec 3, 2007, 11:56 AM
This may be stupid question but I have the current iMac with the BTO 2.8 ghz processor. As far as I knew the iMacs used a mobile chipset but according to that chart, the current fastest mobile processor is a 2.6 ghz. What am I missing?

The chart lists the current fastest mobile processor used in the MacBook Pro, not the current fastest mobile processor available. They should be comparing apple to apple, i.e. the 3dmark06 benchmark for the Penryn X9000 to the current Merom X7900 (available in the high end iMac). I bet the gap would be eliminated as the only advantage the X9000 has over the current fastest Core 2 Extreme processor is the extra 2MB L2.

ckurowic
Dec 3, 2007, 12:01 PM
Just about everyone waiting to get something faster than the current SR MBPs and anyone that doesn't want to pay full price for 6 months+ old technology.



The iMac just got updated and wont' see anything until April or May. It just got updated not too long ago. Apple needs to update its PRO systems before it even touches the consumer stuff.



Yeah.... they do need to do that, but I am sure it's pretty hard trying to cool off a machine that's 1" thin. I would rather have a machine that's just as thick as the MacBook with a better cooling system so I can shove that dual 2.8GHz processor in it.


Yeah but what are the chances of Apple putting a dual 2.8 in the consumer grade MacBooks? I just don't see it happening until the MBP's have some crazy quad core 3.0GHz processor in them, know what I mean? That is, the consumer grade Apple products always lag waaaay behind the pro stuff for a reason, to make the Pro users feel like they are getting more by paying a premium. I'm not saying the pro stuff isn't good, I believe it is. But still, you have to have a significant difference between the pro and consumer lines, there always has been, always will, and hey, its just good business practice (for the business, not for you, but remember its not about you anyway).

As far as the cooling system goes, meh, I'm not going to dwell on it. I like laptops, but when do I honestly need to use one? Maybe if I am going on a trip and need an e-mail center or to watch a DVD on the plane ride. I don't care much about laptop performance, thats why I still use an iBook G4 1.2GHz. I DO care about my desktop performance, however. Don't get me wrong, laptops are great to have, but I'm not sure why people are demanding top-o-the-line insano processors in them....they are mobile computers, since when does anything in the "mobile version" offer the same performance as the original stationary model? Any laptop i have ever used was slower than its desktop counterpart, yes even brand new Pro stuff from Apple.

If I had to guess-- power. The chipset and memory are a huge power consumer, clocking faster will just drain away the battery. They can squeeze a little more speed out of cache, apparently, before going to faster memory so they took that step first. My guess is they'll boost the memory bus when DDR3 goes mainstream.

It's not just about heat, it's about battery life and size. Apple is fixated on making things thin. More power means more cooling and bigger batteries-- all of which leads to thick. My vote would be keep the same depth and boost the run time, but Apple seems to be happy with their current battery life and are more interested in slimming things down.

The battery is what holds up laptops right now. I agree, CPU's are fast enough for at least a few more years (if they stopped developing which they won't, obviously). Lets focus on the flash HDD's, batteries, etc.

matthewHUB
Dec 3, 2007, 12:07 PM
That's good to know. I'm on the same 1ghz PB G4, and I was wondering how Leopard would do on it. How much RAM do you have?

I may need to hold out for the next iteration, and it would be nice to know I could upgrade to Leopard in the meantime...

i have 768mb of RAM. my hard-drive got screwed so i put in a 160gb 7200, and now my computer sleeps whenever it like because of heat issues. I'm about to buy a 4th battery, and i have so many screws missing in this thing i'm amazed it hasn't fallen apart.

That said... it runs perfectly for what i need it to, and why bother upgrading just yet?? Leopard runs fine, a couple of weird things going on... not sure whether they're just PPC bugs or just leopard bugs. i'm sure they'll get ironed out - i just hope they bother for the PPC people! Careful if you buy a new hard drive, and get some more ram if you don't have enough. i have seen a slight performance boost with 10.5.1

matthewHUB
Dec 3, 2007, 12:07 PM
45nm is the size of the process technology Intel uses to make their chips, usually referred to as a "die-shrink". Basically, 45nm is the size of the smallest components on the chips. This decrease in physical size allows the chip to have a higher transistor density, use less energy, be more energy efficient per mhz, etc. The decreased power consumption allows the chips to run at a higher clock speed and consume the same amount of energy or keep/lower the clock speed and gain better battery life for a laptop.

Right now Intel has three groups of Core 2 mobile processors.
The standard Core2 Duo mobile processors which have a power rating of ~34W. There are also two categories of lower voltage chips which run much slower and cooler, but they are not used in most laptops except for small subnotebooks. (Intel Core2 Duo Low voltage (LV) and Ultra-Low Voltage (ULV)

The new "Penryn" standard line of processors will run at 35W and 29W.
In addition to the two low voltage lines, there is a new category of "medium-voltage" processors which have a 25W TDP, but which retain most of the speed, cache size, FSB speed, etc.. Which means they may show up standard laptops. I think these will be the best fit for a subnotebook or long running macbook.

In addition to the die-shrink, Penryn brings many new enhancements to the chip architecture itself, including SSE4 which will speed up multimedia-type operations (video encoding, audio encoding, rendering) for applications that are updated for it.

thank you.

JayLenochiniMac
Dec 3, 2007, 12:11 PM
Yeah.... they do need to do that, but I am sure it's pretty hard trying to cool off a machine that's 1" thin. I would rather have a machine that's just as thick as the MacBook with a better cooling system so I can shove that dual 2.8GHz processor in it.

Why don't you wait for Montevina in third quarter 2008? The yet unnamed 2.8GHz with 1066MHz front side bus has a TDP of 35W, cool enough to place in the MBP. You already have a decent MBP and I doubt they'll make big changes to it until then.

Norris3eb
Dec 3, 2007, 12:17 PM
Scenario:

College student has funds to purchase Mac, but is distraught by all of the upgrade talk of the MBP. Classes start Jan. 14th. Should he order current model of MBP now, or wait in hopes of getting a Penryn?

If I order a current model, is there any way I can exchange my buy for a new one when they are released?

Thoughts.

heffeque
Dec 3, 2007, 12:17 PM
Sh¡t! I need my MBP this month and they're going to renew the MBPs on January/February? ARGH! Bad timing ;-(

JayLenochiniMac
Dec 3, 2007, 12:21 PM
Just get the 2.6GHz. Won't go any faster than that until late next year.

lasuther
Dec 3, 2007, 12:31 PM
Scenario:

College student has funds to purchase Mac, but is distraught by all of the upgrade talk of the MBP. Classes start Jan. 14th. Should he order current model of MBP now, or wait in hopes of getting a Penryn?

If I order a current model, is there any way I can exchange my buy for a new one when they are released?

Thoughts.

The processors are expected to be released in January. They could be released later. And even when they are release, it could take months before it makes it into the MacBook Pro. Just ask the people who are still waiting on new Mac Pros to be released with the chip released in November. And even after this update, you really want to wait for the Montevina chip in late 2008.

I recommend buying at the last possible moment you can, keeping it as long as you can, then selling it for a new one.

AtomicPunk
Dec 3, 2007, 01:06 PM
Great! :rolleyes:

Now where the ***** is the new Mac Pro?

I dying here. :mad:

Sannekita
Dec 3, 2007, 01:35 PM
woohoo!! Please give me a new macbookpro in january!

Wild-Bill
Dec 3, 2007, 01:36 PM
Just get the 2.6GHz. Won't go any faster than that until late next year.

Why anyone would pay $250.00 for a 200Mhz increase is beyond me.

EagerDragon
Dec 3, 2007, 01:50 PM
So far this is just another speed bump, does not deserve a KeyNote. I really would love a cristal ball to see what is coming down Jan 15.

dal20402
Dec 3, 2007, 02:30 PM
Why anyone would pay $250.00 for a 200Mhz increase is beyond me.

...says the guy who won't buy because he's waiting for... wait for it... a 200MHz increase!

Digital Skunk
Dec 3, 2007, 02:56 PM
Yeah but what are the chances of Apple putting a dual 2.8 in the consumer grade MacBooks?

I was talking about the MacBook Pros.

Why don't you wait for Montevina in third quarter 2008? The yet unnamed 2.8GHz with 1066MHz front side bus has a TDP of 35W, cool enough to place in the MBP. You already have a decent MBP and I doubt they'll make big changes to it until then.

I might just have too if I need it in January. I hope that they give the 2.6 standard on the high-end, if they do, then I will just grab that one.

sedarby
Dec 3, 2007, 03:57 PM
Why anyone would pay $250.00 for a 200Mhz increase is beyond me.

Sony charges $300 to go from 2.4 to 2.6 so Apple is really not out of line here.;)

w.t.f
Dec 3, 2007, 10:26 PM
So, any of these might be going in the macbook?

AidenShaw
Dec 3, 2007, 11:05 PM
So, any of these might be going in the macbook?

Apple's M.O. is to put new tech into the MacBook Pro long before it ends up in the MacBook.

I'd expect a Jan-Feb announcement that Penryn Mobile will be in the MBP, then June or July before a MacBook upgrade.

John Musbach
Dec 6, 2007, 12:40 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Taiwanese site Coolaler previewed (http://www.coolaler.com/content/node/1785) an early version of Intel's upcoming Penryn X9000 CPU. A translation of some of the findings was provided (http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4440&Itemid=1) by Fudzilla.

The CPU previewed was an engineering build of the Penryn X9000 CPU clocked at 2.8GHz. Along with the 45-nm die shrink, the upcoming mobile CPUs increase the L2 cache, and boost processor speeds. The 3dmark06 (http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark06/) benchmark for the production sample 2.8GHz processor gives a CPU score of 2569, which compares to scores (http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectsearch.jsp) of 2106-2339 for the current top-of-the-line 2.6GHz CPU available as a build-to-order open in MacBook Pros.

Obviously, not too much weight should be given to benchmarks for early engineering sample CPUs, but the release of new mobile processors may trigger an upgrade cycle for Apple's MacBook Pro laptops, which have not seen substantial updates since June.

The new mobile Penryn processors are expected to be released in January 2008 (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/20/january-2008-macbook-pros-with-penryn-processors/).

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/02/upcoming-mobile-intel-penryn-prototype-previewed/)

Sounds good to me, those benchmarks seem to indicate that the upgrade will indeed be beneficial which is always good :)

Umbongo
Dec 6, 2007, 04:15 AM
...says the guy who won't buy because he's waiting for... wait for it... a 200MHz increase!

You don't need to read many Wild-Bill posts to know that he really, and I mean really, isn't waiting for processor speed increases. ;)

Sony charges $300 to go from 2.4 to 2.6 so Apple is really not out of line here.;)

Nope they aren't, the Intel OEM price between 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz is $214 and a whopping $535 between 2.4 and 2.8. I don't think that was his point though, with the high end mobile processors you pay a large fee for the performance increase you get.

Wild-Bill
Dec 6, 2007, 04:52 AM
...says the guy who won't buy because he's waiting for... wait for it... a 200MHz increase!

:confused: ^ says the noobie who has.......wait for it........no idea what he is talking about. No idea. :rolleyes:

You don't need to read many Wild-Bill posts to know that he really, and I mean really, isn't waiting for processor speed increases. ;)


Thanks Umbongo. ;) There seems to be a rash of people busting in on threads and making posts that are woefully underinformed or downright mistaken.

thebeat
Dec 8, 2007, 02:46 PM
Guess what? Intel will announce these in January, but they won't ship til mid/late February....

You're wrong

TurboSC
Dec 8, 2007, 02:58 PM
You're wrong

seconded... I really hope they pop these bad boys in the new MBP update come MacWorld... that's my backup just in case they don't announce an ultra-thin :P

capitanbuzo
Dec 8, 2007, 03:37 PM
You're wrong

seconded... I really hope they pop these bad boys in the new MBP update come MacWorld... that's my backup just in case they don't announce an ultra-thin :P

I doubt it will be mid to late February but I also have doubts of immediate shipments. If they are being released on Jan 6, I would assume that Apple would get them a bit earlier than that along with the other manufacturers. I would think that the worse case senerio would be early February to mid-February.

Digital Skunk
Dec 8, 2007, 04:28 PM
I doubt it will be mid to late February but I also have doubts of immediate shipments. If they are being released on Jan 6, I would assume that Apple would get them a bit earlier than that along with the other manufacturers. I would think that the worse case senerio would be early February to mid-February.

The chips are coming on January 6th. MWSF isn't until the 15th and as many have said Apple and other manufacturers are getting early OEM shipments of the parts, so I am sure that by the 15th they will be available in ready to ship Mac Pro and workstation units.

vixapphire
Dec 22, 2007, 04:08 PM
I hate to be a dum-dum here, but I'm not immersed enough in the Intel lexicon to know what to make of this stuff and I'm about to make my purchasing decision on a 17" mbp.

I nixed a refurb 2.4 hi-res because the price diff between that and the best deal on a 2.6 hi-res with 40GB bigger drive (7200) is less than $200, so I'm looking hard at the 2.6 right now.

It looks like the penryn will have the same FSB but larger L2 cache, and perhaps I can get the 2.6 a little cheaper since it appears a 2.8 will be taking the top-of-line spot.

I'd appreciate someone providing an intelligent estimate of what % performance difference the boosted L2 cache size in the proposed penryn 2.6 (according to the numbers in the original post) would provide, all else (RAM, HD speed, etc.) being equal. I don't care about battery life either, since this is basically going to replace both my old laptop and desktop machines and will likely be stationary/plugged in most of the time.

Thanks for your advise; I'm burning to pull the trigger here, but I'll wait the 3 weeks if there's substantial reason to. So far, I'm not really convinced that there's a compelling reason for my uses (I need something that can really do the do with Logic Pro, and I'm getting out of the desktop I'm currently using because I like to work mobile).

Digital Skunk
Dec 22, 2007, 04:51 PM
I hate to be a dum-dum here, but I'm not immersed enough in the Intel lexicon to know what to make of this stuff and I'm about to make my purchasing decision on a 17" mbp.

I nixed a refurb 2.4 hi-res because the price diff between that and the best deal on a 2.6 hi-res with 40GB bigger drive (7200) is less than $200, so I'm looking hard at the 2.6 right now.

It looks like the penryn will have the same FSB but larger L2 cache, and perhaps I can get the 2.6 a little cheaper since it appears a 2.8 will be taking the top-of-line spot.

I'd appreciate someone providing an intelligent estimate of what % performance difference the boosted L2 cache size in the proposed penryn 2.6 (according to the numbers in the original post) would provide, all else (RAM, HD speed, etc.) being equal. I don't care about battery life either, since this is basically going to replace both my old laptop and desktop machines and will likely be stationary/plugged in most of the time.

Thanks for your advise; I'm burning to pull the trigger here, but I'll wait the 3 weeks if there's substantial reason to. So far, I'm not really convinced that there's a compelling reason for my uses (I need something that can really do the do with Logic Pro, and I'm getting out of the desktop I'm currently using because I like to work mobile).

Honestly there is no reason to wait if you can pull the trigger on the 2.6 now. From what the persons in the know tell me the Dual 2.8 is too hot to be put into a MBP right now so the top of the line will be a 2.6. I am hoping that the 2.6 becomes the standard config for the either the mid range 15" or the high-end 17" so I don't have to pay the extra cash for it.

The L2 cache may not add that much of a performance boost, but may add stability and cooler running temps. The last iteration of the Dual Core PPC G5 towers had that benefit, single chip dual core meant VERY stable and very cool running. So Penryn is really just an updated SR in my opinion, one that is more refined and gives us cooler running temps, a more stable system, and maybe a slight boost in performance but nothing more than that.

I am crossing my fingers for a much more refined design in the MBP and a new GFX card. My dream is for a real desktop replacement that gives me 512MB GFX memory and at least up to 320GB HDD @ 5400rpm as a BTO option if I ever decided to go for more storage.

I am starting to come to grips with a very boring outcome of MWSF '08. Just Mac Pro updates (maybe silent) and iTunes movie rentals and kiddy ***** like the iPhone.

waffle911
Dec 22, 2007, 07:13 PM
I am crossing my fingers for a much more refined design in the MBP and a new GFX card. My dream is for a real desktop replacement that gives me 512MB GFX memory and at least up to 320GB HDD @ 5400rpm as a BTO option if I ever decided to go for more storage.

512 MB gfx memory is pushing it, currently only SLi for notebooks, and then battery life is kaput. Apple wouldn't allow that. Also, experience tells me that if you want to upgrade memory or storage, doing it yourself is hundreds cheaper. 320GB from Newegg is $200 now, probably will go down by the time you need it. Otherwise Apple's mobile drive prices are right on target, but you can still sell the old drive and recuperate more of the cost of upgrading when you do it yourself. But $700 for a 4GB ram upgrade is just downright malicious. 80-90 bucks is the realistic low end of the price range, and that's not for crappy no-name silicon.

Personally, I think the biggest update Apple could use is a free 3/yr warranty/support plan. The current cost of the option is ridiculous for a high-end machine like this.

vixapphire
Dec 22, 2007, 07:39 PM
512 MB gfx memory is pushing it, currently only SLi for notebooks, and then battery life is kaput. Apple wouldn't allow that. Also, experience tells me that if you want to upgrade memory or storage, doing it yourself is hundreds cheaper. 320GB from Newegg is $200 now, probably will go down by the time you need it. Otherwise Apple's mobile drive prices are right on target, but you can still sell the old drive and recuperate more of the cost of upgrading when you do it yourself. But $700 for a 4GB ram upgrade is just downright malicious. 80-90 bucks is the realistic low end of the price range, and that's not for crappy no-name silicon.

Personally, I think the biggest update Apple could use is a free 3/yr warranty/support plan. The current cost of the option is ridiculous for a high-end machine like this.

agreed with the last bit particularly; i can't believe the company nickle-and-dimes buyers of these BTO >$3k boxes for the support. Given they're pricing stuff like 4GB RAM at $700, they make arguments like "there's not enough profit in these machines" ring very foolish.

i'm going to wait til macworld. if nothing else, the price on the outgoing machines (if there's any material difference) may go down a bit at the CDW-type places that keep stock on hand, making for possible further bargains on new machines at that time; worst case, i pay in a few weeks what i would be paying now, and will have to "de-authorize" a bunch of software to port it from my current computer to the new one, rather than installing it on the new one next week...