Intel To Launch Quad-Core "Mobile" Processor In Q3 2008 [Archive]

MacRumors

Mar 17, 2008, 04:57 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

DigiTimes is reporting that Intel will be set to launch its mobile quad-core processor (http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080313PD219.html), the Core 2 Extreme QX9300, in the third quarter of this year.

The processor will carry a hefty price tag at US $1,038 in thousand-unit quantities, and DigiTimes says Intel does not expect demand to really pick up until the second half of 2009. Intel had previously demoed the chip (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/15/intel-demos-next-generation-mobile-processor/) at their Fall Developer Forum.

While the processor looks to be the first quad-core mobile CPU, its adoption will be limited due to its higher-than-average thermal design power of 45 Watts. Other elements of the processor promise to be surprisingly full-featured compared to its desktop counterparts: 2.53 GHz, 1066 MHz front side bus, and 12 MB L2 cache.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/17/intel-to-launch-quad-core-mobile-processor-in-q3-2008/)

diamond.g

Mar 17, 2008, 04:59 PM

Quad Core iMac!!!! (Or 17" MBP)

iDAG

Mar 17, 2008, 05:00 PM

I think we will see this in an iMac way before a MacBook Pro. :cool:

bbplayer5

Mar 17, 2008, 05:02 PM

iMac would rule as a quad!

longofest

Mar 17, 2008, 05:02 PM

I think we will see this in an iMac way before a MacBook Pro. :cool:

Agreed. It's a bit too hot to put in MBP, but we're getting closer to truly mobile quadcore.

Notice I put mobile in quotes in the story title. :cool:

MartinelliMinim

Mar 17, 2008, 05:02 PM

THIS IS AWESOME. All i need to know is the exact date when this is to happen so i can sell my MbP and get this one =) finally they are making quadcore laptops. That would be awesome if they put like a 9800M GT graphics card. Lol.

psychofreak

Mar 17, 2008, 05:03 PM

JamesMcCain

Mar 17, 2008, 05:04 PM

ugh, looks like im just going to be buying more then 1 mac now... fantastic!

Cloudsurfer

Mar 17, 2008, 05:04 PM

Fantastic news for the iMac!

milo

Mar 17, 2008, 05:05 PM

I wish they'd just use the damn desktop chips in the iMac...and we'd have seen a quad core version already.

I know they have a "thin" fetish, but I'd rather see the best price/performance instead.

psychofreak

Mar 17, 2008, 05:08 PM

I wish they'd just use the damn desktop chips in the iMac...and we'd have seen a quad core version already.

I know they have a "thin" fetish, but I'd rather see the best price/performance instead.Its not gonna happen, especially with mobile chips now getting to be way above the performance most consumers need (most people just use Mail, Safari, iTunes and Word, hardly requiring four cores).

bmb012

Mar 17, 2008, 05:09 PM

longofest

Mar 17, 2008, 05:11 PM

Its not gonna happen, especially with mobile chips now getting to be way above the performance most consumers need (most people just use Mail, Safari, iTunes and Word, hardly requiring four cores).

The fastest mobile chips are almost beating out the fastest ever PPC chips now. I know because my QUAD is only barely beating the GeekBench numbers of the latest MacBook Pros (I think 100-200 GeekBench points if i recall)

Chaszmyr

Mar 17, 2008, 05:11 PM

I agree with others, I think it seems much more likely that we'll see this chip in iMacs than in MacBooks.

longofest

Mar 17, 2008, 05:11 PM

ChrisA

Mar 17, 2008, 05:14 PM

iMac would rule as a quad!

It would be nice but how many $2,700 iMacs could they sell?

And then with a 45W heater inside you'd need eiher run a fan or use the aluminum case as a heat sink. In which case you either hear the whiners here complain about fan noise or a hot to touch case.

HP is currently selling quad core desktop machines with 2Gb RAM, LCD monitor and a "free" printer for $1,500 out the door price.

KingYaba

Mar 17, 2008, 05:16 PM

That's hot

DTphonehome

Mar 17, 2008, 05:19 PM

Yowza! But probably won't be in run-of-the-mill MBPs until 2nd half 2009.

QCassidy352

Mar 17, 2008, 05:21 PM

Its not gonna happen, especially with mobile chips now getting to be way above the performance most consumers need (most people just use Mail, Safari, iTunes and Word, hardly requiring four cores).

I don't understand how people can make bald assertions about what "most consumers need." I think a lot of "average consumers" these days want to do things like encode video, manage enormous photo libraries, watch HD video, playing 3d games, or just run 8 programs at once.

I can remember a time when I argued, on this site (so we're not talking 10 years ago), that some people are better off with a G3 ibook than a G4 powerbook because some people "just didn't need all the power of a G4."

booksacool1

Mar 17, 2008, 05:22 PM

Would this really benefit the iMac? I mean, I have a quad core Mac Pro, and I only get all 4 of those cores singing every once in a while, and it's mainly a work computer.

I would imagine that getting a gaming class video card in that thing would be higher priority than putting an extremely expensive processor in the iMac...

The only real benefit it has (imo) is that a quad core processor has real future potential. Demanding programs may eventually become 'faster' as the computer ages because they start to make real use of the other two or three cores. Meaning you won't (ever) need a processor upgrade (for the life of the machine).

But yeah, keeping the cpu fast doesn't really help gamers. A quad core coupled with one or two gpu upgrades could keep your computer running fast for years, but honestly though, I don't imagine apple releasing graphics cards for sale (bastards!).

EagerDragon

Mar 17, 2008, 05:22 PM

I would love one, but likely this would come out in an iMac before we ever see it in an MBP.

A 4 core iMac would be very sweet but at htat price point per CPU, it would be a very expensive iMac.

It would be nice but how many $2,700 iMacs could they sell?

And then with a 45W heater inside you'd need eiher run a fan or use the aluminum case as a heat sink. In which case you either hear the whiners here complain about fan noise or a hot to touch case.

HP is currently selling quad core desktop machines with 2Gb RAM, LCD monitor and a "free" printer for $1,500 out the door price.

2700 would be the same price as an Octal Mac Pro (minus scree). That would kill it from seeing the light of day.

PS... HP does not make Macs or run OSX, not the same, also not likely HP is giving you a monitor with the quality of the iMac 24.

andiwm2003

Mar 17, 2008, 05:24 PM

so this story puts the earliest release date for a MBP quadcore in mid 2009. (i belive in 2010)

but since the rumor is out now the wait begins and i can see the threads: should one buy an dual core MBP now or wait for a quad core? and: how can a PRO machine only have two cores when a CONSUMER imac has four (a quad core imac is more likely to arrive in 2009)? :eek:

i personally hope more for a 3.2 GHz Dual Core MBP. That may be actually better for most users since single treads are faster than on a quad. together with all the core features of OS X it would be really fast. and i think it could be there end of 2008 or beginning of 2009.

virtuatony

Mar 17, 2008, 05:25 PM

Wasn't the previous "extreme" 2.6ghz merom processor in the previous santa rosa MBPs of 44 watts tdp?

hvfsl

Mar 17, 2008, 05:27 PM

Yowza! But probably won't be in run-of-the-mill MBPs until 2nd half 2009.
And then probably just in the 17inch MBP as a BTO option.

BongoBanger

Mar 17, 2008, 05:27 PM

EagerDragon

Mar 17, 2008, 05:33 PM

Darkroom

Mar 17, 2008, 05:34 PM

30" iMac? that would be quite the pricy unity... i can see it though... but i can see this being used in the much desired xMac easier...

milo

Mar 17, 2008, 05:35 PM

Its not gonna happen, especially with mobile chips now getting to be way above the performance most consumers need (most people just use Mail, Safari, iTunes and Word, hardly requiring four cores).

We'll definitely see quad core in iMac and eventually laptops. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Consumers are doing things like video processing, music, etc that can use plenty of power. And the high end laptops and iMacs are really positioned as pro (or at least semi-pro) machines based on price and performance.

It would be nice but how many $2,700 iMacs could they sell?

And then with a 45W heater inside you'd need eiher run a fan or use the aluminum case as a heat sink. In which case you either hear the whiners here complain about fan noise or a hot to touch case.

HP is currently selling quad core desktop machines with 2Gb RAM, LCD monitor and a "free" printer for $1,500 out the door price.

Well, they seem to be selling $2249 iMacs now. But I do agree that it would be nice to see them use desktop components and deliver quad core for much less.

Check this out, they could be offering this in an iMac right now if they were willing to use desktop components...or in a midtower:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

asdavis10

Mar 17, 2008, 05:40 PM

I think we will see this in an iMac way before a MacBook Pro. :cool:

Maybe, but most likely not at the price those chips will sell. The price of an iMac would be reaching that of a Mac Pro. Not many people would buy them. Which is why we haven't seen a quad-core iMac already. In reality, most people that own MBP's use them for more CPU intensive tasks than people that own iMacs. And for the most part, people that own MBP's will spend the extra money for the power/mobility combination. Hence why MBP owners spend around $2500+ when they could shell out $300 more and have a Mac Pro. The heat of a quad-core chip will be the major factor, but I'm sure Intel and Apple will figure something out.

milo

Mar 17, 2008, 05:48 PM

Maybe, but most likely not at the price those chips will sell. The price of an iMac would be reaching that of a Mac Pro. Not many people would buy them. Which is why we haven't seen a quad-core iMac already.

Nope. The reason we haven't seen them is because Apple is using laptop chips, and intel hasn't shipped quad mobile chips yet.

Desktop Core 2 Quad start around $250 retail, so they wouldn't be that much more than what Apple is paying for dual core chips.

usingpond

Mar 17, 2008, 05:48 PM

milo

Mar 17, 2008, 05:52 PM

Does anyone else laugh at how obviously great the choice to switch from PPC to Intel was? An improved processor/chipset with a PPC was an event that happened every few years; with Intel it's every few months now it seems.

Depends how you look at things. On this board, people complain constantly that apple isn't improving their CPUs fast enough, even when they're using the best from intel.

While intel keeps improving the chips, more efficient, new designs, more cores, they still haven't increased clock speed much. Remember how long ago it was that Jobs promised 3 gigahertz, and we still just barely have it in a couple machines at $3600+.

I'm not complaining (or agreeing with them), just pointing out that many don't see things as rosy as you do.

ChrisA

Mar 17, 2008, 05:53 PM

Its not gonna happen, especially with mobile chips now getting to be way above the performance most consumers need (most people just use Mail, Safari, iTunes and Word, hardly requiring four cores).

This has always been true because the software engineers at Apple, Adodbe and Microsoft mostly know the limitation of their target customer's machines.

The next obvious jump in computing will be to 300 or 600 DPI monitors. This will require a 4X or 8x increase in compute power.

At some point I expect the "web cam" to be used as an input device. We have multi toutch pads now. But why use a pad when you have a camera? Why not just move your hand in the air? For that matter why can't the camera watch your eye movments?
How about voice?

What is the ideal input method, assume no technical limits? I think we'd have to go back to 1250 AD. How did Thomas Aquinus author his huge body of works? He spoke aloud to scribes who would follow him and write down what he said then go back and edit and organize and present their work for his review. He employed enough scibes so that some could be editing and organizing, some taking dictation while others wrote out final copy. Today we see laywers who emply law clerks to work under direction, same kind of thing. Some day computers with thousands or millions of CPU cores will take the place of scribes and clerks.

Someday someone will write "640 Killo-cores should be enough for any purpose"

There are many uses for a multi-core machines

Eidorian

Mar 17, 2008, 05:55 PM

I'm glad we have a Page 1 thread for this...

http://guides.macrumors.com/Core_2_Extreme_QX9300

twoodcc

Mar 17, 2008, 06:05 PM

i predict these will be in mbps in the second half of 2009. i guess i won't be buying a laptop before then

asdavis10

Mar 17, 2008, 06:10 PM

Nope. The reason we haven't seen them is because Apple is using laptop chips, and intel hasn't shipped quad mobile chips yet.

Desktop Core 2 Quad start around $250 retail, so they wouldn't be that much more than what Apple is paying for dual core chips.

Doesn't the 24" Core 2 Extreme iMac use Intel's Conroe XE desktop processor? I thought it did. But I could be wrong.

DavidCar

Mar 17, 2008, 06:11 PM

I find it interesting that "... DigiTimes says Intel does not expect demand to really pick up until the second half of 2009." I thought the roadmap says the Nehalem Clarksfield processor was due Q2 2009 with a TDP of 45-55 Watts. Quad Core, eight threads, 8MB fully shared L3 cache, etc.

I was planning that my next iMac would be Nehalem based and would appear maybe 2H 2009.

Eidorian

Mar 17, 2008, 06:13 PM

Doesn't the 24" Core 2 Extreme iMac use Intel's Conroe XE desktop processor? I thought it did. But I could be wrong.The iMac uses the Merom XE series.

asdavis10

Mar 17, 2008, 06:15 PM

The iMac uses the Merom XE series.

I stand corrected.

e-coli

Mar 17, 2008, 06:17 PM

Other elements of the processor promise to be surprisingly full-featured compared to its desktop counterparts: 2.53 GHz, 1066 MHz front side bus...

...AND a 12 minute battery life.

Quillz

Mar 17, 2008, 06:23 PM

Depends how you look at things. On this board, people complain constantly that apple isn't improving their CPUs fast enough, even when they're using the best from intel.

While intel keeps improving the chips, more efficient, new designs, more cores, they still haven't increased clock speed much. Remember how long ago it was that Jobs promised 3 gigahertz, and we still just barely have it in a couple machines at $3600+.

I'm not complaining (or agreeing with them), just pointing out that many don't see things as rosy as you do.Clock speed isn't nearly as important as other aspects, such as front side bus.

Di9it8

Mar 17, 2008, 06:31 PM

Its not gonna happen, especially with mobile chips now getting to be way above the performance most consumers need (most people just use Mail, Safari, iTunes and Word, hardly requiring four cores).
My MBP sometimes has a busy time, I would be happy with a quad core!!
See enclosed screengrab, this is during animation rendering, still waiting to see 200% of CPU, running here at
186.80% of CPU:D

JayLenochiniMac

Mar 17, 2008, 06:33 PM

Wasn't the previous "extreme" 2.6ghz merom processor in the previous santa rosa MBPs of 44 watts tdp?

No, it uses T7800 rated at 35W, not to be confused with the extreme version X7800 rated at 44W. Apple has never placed an extreme processor in a notebook.

Rhinestorm

Mar 17, 2008, 06:34 PM

This will more likely be in the higher-end model of the Imac when it gets an update possibly at the end of the year.

Yvan256

Mar 17, 2008, 06:36 PM

Let me be the first to say: I do NOT want to see that 45 watts thing inside my next Mac mini, I like the silence!

Quad-core in the Mac mini? Sure, once it requires a lot less power.

ChrisA

Mar 17, 2008, 06:41 PM

While intel keeps improving the chips, more efficient, new designs, more cores, they still haven't increased clock speed much. .

This is on purpose. Power usage goes up very, very quickly with increased clock speed. Somehing like "double the clock and the power goes up by 4x". Power usage directly effects battery life and heat. Adding a second core doubles the speed with only a small increment in power usage. I can envision a procesoor with 1,000 cores but I can't envision one that has 1000X faster clock. Clocks have about topped out.

All technologies are like that, airplanes, cars and whatever, they race forward until they mature and reach a practical limit. In the end practical limits seem to be lower then technical limits while in the beginning it is technical limits that are more restrictive

Di9it8

Mar 17, 2008, 06:43 PM

Quad-core in the Mac mini? Sure, once it requires a lot less power.

What about a Quad Core Mac Mini Server setup?

SirOmega

Mar 17, 2008, 07:00 PM

I posted a thread about this in the iMac forum a week ago, and it got moved and merged with the thread in the MacBook Pro forum. Even though I explicitly said that I dont think that it will end up in the MBP, but rather the fall refresh of the iMac.

Bubba Satori

Mar 17, 2008, 07:10 PM

...AND a 12 minute battery life.

More than that. Saw a test of a Sager (Clevo) laptop with with a quad core desktop cpu, two 200GB 7200rpm hard drives in raid 0 and two 8800GTs in SLI and it ran for 50 minutes of gaming. I would imgaine a mobile part would get around 2 hours.

Bubba Satori

Mar 17, 2008, 07:14 PM

Let me be the first to say: I do NOT want to see that 45 watts thing inside my next Mac mini, I like the silence!

Quad-core in the Mac mini? Sure, once it requires a lot less power.

I do. That's the great thing about multiple choices and build to order. Everybody gets what they want. I'm going to send Apple a letter explaining how it works. :D

psychofreak

Mar 17, 2008, 07:15 PM

I do. That's the great thing about multiple choices and build to order. Everybody gets what they want. I'm going to send Apple a letter explaining how it works. :D

Apple doesn't want someone to go to your house, hear your Mac's fans blazing and be put off Macs.

Mr Maui

Mar 17, 2008, 07:31 PM

While intel keeps improving the chips, more efficient, new designs, more cores, they still haven't increased clock speed much. Remember how long ago it was that Jobs promised 3 gigahertz, and we still just barely have it in a couple machines at $3600+.

Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.

ljocampo

Mar 17, 2008, 07:41 PM

There isn't really that much software that's optimised for quad core at the moment so it's difficult to see where the initial demand for quad core laptops is going to come from. That said, it's an inevitable step forward and I suspect most of these will end up in high end gaming laptops and iMacs.

There are many many iMac users that use their machines for graphic arts and or music creation. In fact, most of the creative professionals work on iMacs. Photoshop and most of Adobe's creative suite is optimized for multi-cores. In music, so is ProTools etc etc etc.

winterspan

Mar 17, 2008, 07:43 PM

I myself am more interested in something like this running in a macbook Pro for better battery life:

Penryn Core 2 Duo P9500 - only 25W TDP
- 2.53GHZ
- 6MB cache
- 1066 FSB

But regarding the quad core chip, extreme series chips are always very expensive and run hot. For Penryn, there are two mobile extreme series announced so far, both with 45W TDP ratings.

1) Core 2 Extreme X9100, 3.06Ghz Dual Core
2) Core 2 Extreme QX9300, 2.53Ghz Quad core.

However, With the release of mobile Nehalem in Q1 2009, you'll see similar processors in the regular lineup, NOT extreme, which will
be much cheaper and most likely use less power. Hopefully we'll see a Quad core mobile at a 34 watt TDP/

Nehalem also introduces the first NATIVE quad core (4 cores on one die) chips for mobile, desktop, server in addition to native 8-core chips for 4+ socket servers. Either way, Nehalem is a totally new architecture than Core, including on-board memory controller and Quickpath front-side-bus replacement (similar to AMD HyperTransport). according to Wiki, Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have up to1.25x the single-threaded performance, and up to 2x the multithreaded performance and 30% lower power usage for the same performance.

On a side note, Nehalem is also supposed to bring a big increases in floating point performance which has always lagged integer performance in Intels processors vs AMD. This will allow Xeons to scale much better in large many processor systems versus AMD's Opteron, which has allowed AMD to historically have a big lead in 4P+ HPC and scientific computing.

ljocampo

Mar 17, 2008, 07:50 PM

We'll definitely see quad core in iMac and eventually laptops. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Consumers are doing things like video processing, music, etc that can use plenty of power. And the high end laptops and iMacs are really positioned as pro (or at least semi-pro) machines based on price and performance.

Well, they seem to be selling $2249 iMacs now. But I do agree that it would be nice to see them use desktop components and deliver quad core for much less.

Check this out, they could be offering this in an iMac right now if they were willing to use desktop components...or in a midtower:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

The truth is that this new quad-core is only about $190 more than the duel-core that's in the BTO 2.8 extreme model. By the time this new chip get here, it'll probably be the same price. btw: desktop parts give to much heat and that means high fan noise. IMHO I'll take less power for less noise in an iMac.

BongoBanger

Mar 17, 2008, 07:53 PM

There are many many iMac users that use their machines for graphic arts and or music creation. In fact, most of the creative professionals work on iMacs. Photoshop and most of Adobe's creative suite is optimized for multi-cores. In music, so is ProTools etc etc etc.

Fair enough.

psychofreak

Mar 17, 2008, 07:57 PM

lasuther

Mar 17, 2008, 08:06 PM

30" iMac Quad Core with Blueray, $2999 at the Jan 2010 Expo.

Ged'

Mar 17, 2008, 08:58 PM

30" iMac Quad Core with Blueray, $2999 at the Jan 2010 Expo.

Imagine setting that up on your desk. I really don't see the joy in 30". I sold my 24" mirror in the end, the prospect of a 30" mirror is scary.

Quad core in the iMac would definitely be sweet though. Catch up with some of the consumer pc's out atm.

vohdoun

Mar 17, 2008, 09:02 PM

Steve promised 3GHz on PPC, and Apple did have an influence on the production.

Sounds like he fell for the processor marketing BS from back in 2001/02 days, where it was all hype for Ghz.

Since at least 2005 its clock per cycle or something like that. Sadly to this day too many people would think 5Ghz would cream everything and Steve bought that to this day. So everybody else jumps on that bandwagon.

It's how efficient the CPU is per clock cycle. Look at AMD when the Athlon 64 hit and the X2. They didn't need 3Ghz. Most of their chips were 2.0 to 2.4Ghz and it was whipping Intel's ass. Until the day came when Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo, the tables turned. But the same practice remained.

treasurefinder

Mar 17, 2008, 09:18 PM

I don't understand how people can make bald assertions about what "most consumers need." I think a lot of "average consumers" these days want to do things like encode video, manage enormous photo libraries, watch HD video, playing 3d games, or just run 8 programs at once.

I can remember a time when I argued, on this site (so we're not talking 10 years ago), that some people are better off with a G3 ibook than a G4 powerbook because some people "just didn't need all the power of a G4."

maybe, but none of those programs are optimized for use of 4 cores. most programs are just starting to make use of 2.

infact, things like managing enormous photo libraries requires a fast CPU and fast HDD (7200 rpm), watchin HD video requires a processor optimizied for HD viewing (Montevina platform, dual-core), most 3d games are optimized for 2 cores with a fast graphics card and lots of memory. Running 8 programs at once can be done well with just one processor, one decent graphics card and lots of memory.

HaGG

Mar 17, 2008, 09:33 PM

When it does come to mac, it's going to be optional. I'm surprised we've had to wait this long, I don't know if Mac will be able to secure it as a Mac Exclusive though, Alienware and Dell will want this.

sleepingworker

Mar 17, 2008, 09:58 PM

My current G4 PB doesn't have enough battery life to finish a movie (with a relatively new battery) - I can't imagine the power drain on a quad-core processor.

RoDe

Mar 18, 2008, 01:11 AM

No matter how much we want this processor to end up in a MBP, it won't happen. We'll see quad core by 2009. The current versions just use to much energy. Maybe in the iMacs. Though I doubt even that.

diamond.g

Mar 18, 2008, 06:05 AM

Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.Apple would have faster chips if they didn't have a mobile CPU fetish. The desktop parts are able to hit much higher clock speeds with out added cooling. That just shows how Intel is really milking the market. As soon as AMD can come up with a faster chip Intel is right there in lock step with the same or faster speeds. The current clock speed barrier is 3.8-4Ghz. At that point you need more voltage than is safe (or sane) and the heat output stops being linear.

Sounds like he fell for the processor marketing BS from back in 2001/02 days, where it was all hype for Ghz.

Since at least 2005 its clock per cycle or something like that. Sadly to this day too many people would think 5Ghz would cream everything and Steve bought that to this day. So everybody else jumps on that bandwagon.

It's how efficient the CPU is per clock cycle. Look at AMD when the Athlon 64 hit and the X2. They didn't need 3Ghz. Most of their chips were 2.0 to 2.4Ghz and it was whipping Intel's ass. Until the day came when Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo, the tables turned. But the same practice remained.You are thinking of IPC, Instructions per Cycle. Clock for Clock AMDs K8 was faster than Intels P4. Now Intel is faster, and from my understanding most of the speed has to do with the SSE instructions going from 2 cycles per set to 1.

No matter how much we want this processor to end up in a MBP, it won't happen. We'll see quad core by 2009. The current versions just use to much energy. Maybe in the iMacs. Though I doubt even that. Apple could ask Intel to use lower multipliers. I am sure a quad 2 Ghz MBP would sit at a lower TDP. Or even a quad 1.8Ghz.

Manic Mouse

Mar 18, 2008, 07:49 AM

Apple could ask Intel to use lower multipliers. I am sure a quad 2 Ghz MBP would sit at a lower TDP. Or even a quad 1.8Ghz.

Yeah, I've never really understood why they don't have lower frequency but more cores. For most single programs 1.8-2Ghz per core is plenty, and the ones that really require CPU power are multi-threaded anyway and would run better on a quad 1.8 than a dual 2.4.

A quad-core 1.8 or 2.0Ghz Penryn would probably fit in the thermal envelope of the MB/MBP and iMac.

Thomas2006

Mar 18, 2008, 07:53 AM

i predict these will be in mbps in the second half of 2009. i guess i won't be buying a laptop before then
I think we will see a quad-core BTO option when the MBP uses Nehalem, but will become quad-core across the line with Westmere (32nm shrink of Nehalem). The MacBook will stay dual-core until Sandy-Bridge which starts with quad-core.

Thomas2006

Mar 18, 2008, 07:56 AM

Clock speed isn't nearly as important as other aspects, such as front side bus.
The front side bus will go the way of the dodo bird, starting with Nehalem.

diamond.g

Mar 18, 2008, 08:14 AM

The front side bus will go the way of the dodo bird, starting with Nehalem.

Then it will be about how fat the transport links are (and how many of them are there). Of course Intel will finally be joining the party ;).

DukeSnyd

Mar 18, 2008, 11:10 AM

I just got a macbook a month or so ago, and it's 5 times faster than the G4 PB it replaced. If a quad-core MBP was out mid-'10 that would be awesome for me 'cause i'll be looking to replace this baby. I don't need a 4-core cpu now... but what about in five years? I mean, the single cores are all but vanished. bigger, faster, stronger: let's see these babies!

saltyzoo

Mar 18, 2008, 11:27 AM

Would this really benefit the iMac? I mean, I have a quad core Mac Pro, and I only get all 4 of those cores singing every once in a while, and it's mainly a work computer.

I would imagine that getting a gaming class video card in that thing would be higher priority than putting an extremely expensive processor in the iMac...

90% of users don't use 2 cores let alone 4. Most users don't gain value from 2.x GHz cpus either.

But it's a lot easier to charge more for faster cpu's and more RAM than it is to charge more for faster bus speed and faster disk drives.

I mean, the cpu is your bottleneck 10% of the time, the other 90% it's waiting for RAM, disk, or the user. But golly, for another $500 we can sell you a computer that will only bottleneck on the cpu 5% of the time. Save you 14 seconds a day by golly!!!!

kaisdaddy

Mar 18, 2008, 11:51 AM

...Apple can hit a whole new market. The home appliance market!

They could ship a MBP with two teflon inserts, so it could double as a waffle iron or (for the trendier parts of the country) a panini maker. Think of the possibilities! :D

hohohong

Mar 18, 2008, 04:28 PM

From Penryn straight to Nahelam? I thought Montevina is next?

lasuther

Mar 18, 2008, 05:09 PM

Imagine setting that up on your desk. I really don't see the joy in 30". I sold my 24" mirror in the end, the prospect of a 30" mirror is scary.

Apple sells 30" Cinema Displays, I'm sure they could sell 30" iMacs.

milo

Mar 18, 2008, 05:13 PM

Clock speed isn't nearly as important as other aspects, such as front side bus.

I know that. I'm just saying that people will find things to complain about no matter what. The grass is always greener...

Let me be the first to say: I do NOT want to see that 45 watts thing inside my next Mac mini, I like the silence!

Quad-core in the Mac mini? Sure, once it requires a lot less power.

It's not like they'd make it the only version of the mini. They should do it as soon as they can, make it a BTO option.

Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.

I know that, I was just commenting on the various opinions about "Going intel was a stupid/genius move."

The truth is that this new quad-core is only about $190 more than the duel-core that's in the BTO 2.8 extreme model. By the time this new chip get here, it'll probably be the same price. btw: desktop parts give to much heat and that means high fan noise. IMHO I'll take less power for less noise in an iMac.

I'd rather have the power, not to mention that Apple could probably build a machine just as quiet if they weren't so obsessed with keeping the iMac as thin as possible. Sorry, but in a desktop machine I'll take function over form, substance over style. Especially when apple doesn't offer a real alternative to the iMac for price and features.

maybe, but none of those programs are optimized for use of 4 cores. most programs are just starting to make use of 2.

In the case of encoding audio and video, there are apps coded to use four cores. Handbrake has supported 8 for a while.

90% of users don't use 2 cores let alone 4.

No way. Anyone running more than one app at a time uses two cores, and there are plenty of consumer level apps that use at least two cores.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 18, 2008, 05:37 PM

Anyone running more than one app at a time uses two cores, and there are plenty of consumer level apps that use at least two cores.
Yep. Open Activity Monitor right now and sort by number of threads - every thread can be run on any available CPU and/or core under OS X.

Attached screenshot taken with a 2 Safari 3.1 tabs open: one to this forum, one to disney.com

saltyzoo

Mar 18, 2008, 06:06 PM

No way. Anyone running more than one app at a time uses two cores, and there are plenty of consumer level apps that use at least two cores.

*sigh*

Ok, that's kind of like saying toasting marshmallows on the flames is "using" a TITAN V rocket.

Yes, you have a thread running on the core, but unless the other core is already at 100% it's not saving you more than a few seconds a day. Maybe.

winterspan

Mar 18, 2008, 07:44 PM

90% of users don't use 2 cores let alone 4. Most users don't gain value from 2.x GHz cpus either.

But it's a lot easier to charge more for faster cpu's and more RAM than it is to charge more for faster bus speed and faster disk drives.

I mean, the cpu is your bottleneck 10% of the time, the other 90% it's waiting for RAM, disk, or the user. But golly, for another $500 we can sell you a computer that will only bottleneck on the cpu 5% of the time. Save you 14 seconds a day by golly!!!!

Every stat you put in that post is just plain BS. "90% of users don't see a benefit from dual-core"? you have to be kidding me. I would bet nearly 90% of users can subjectively tell a dual core from a single core. It makes a large difference if you are a multi-tasker. Quad cores are much less useful, usually only for rendering graphics, large photoshop transformations, video editing/encoding, etc. Although that will change in the future.

And your other arbitrary figure of CPU being the bottleneck 10% of the time seems wrong as well. I don't have any technical figures, but I would put the number alot higher than that. Same RAM/HDD, I would bet you see a significant improvement moving from a 1.8Ghz core 2 Duo to a 3.2Ghz core 2 duo, and A LOT more than 10% of the time.

I just got a macbook a month or so ago, and it's 5 times faster than the G4 PB it replaced. If a quad-core MBP was out mid-'10 that would be awesome for me 'cause i'll be looking to replace this baby. I don't need a 4-core cpu now... but what about in five years? I mean, the single cores are all but vanished. bigger, faster, stronger: let's see these babies!

smaller, faster, stronger.... :)

Then it will be about how fat the transport links are (and how many of them are there). Of course Intel will finally be joining the party ;).

Well, for the last 3-4 years or so, I would imagine factors such as processor microarchitecture (and thus instructions/clock) and cache subsystem would be much more important than clock speed with comparing processors from different generations...

Prom1

Mar 18, 2008, 09:06 PM

Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.

Um WRONG! It was IBM that promised Steve Jobs a 3Ghz cpu (in less than 12mths) of debuting the G5 cpu @ 1.6/1.8/2.0Ghz! AMD, Intel & IBM had issues with SOI technology during that 12mth period ... trying to break 3Ghz. I recall, only AMD reached 3Ghz milestone and many ppl that ordered those server chips for their desktops didn't see much of a boost in performance. Hence the reason for ALL of the chip companies going multi-core.

Wow Nehalem; with memory controller on die & possible/optional GPU on die (TRUE Ecstasy) will be incredible for high end Mac Pro's and also for XServes! Remember the XServes??? Apple does sell these.

low 1.8/2.4Ghz Nehalem cpu's with 4-Cores may make it to iMac's but not until a revision 3rd QTR next year I think. By then the iMac SHOULD have a new design, and the MacBook Pro should deserve a new shell design as well - not just in materials (I'd like to see Magnesium as it dissipates heat better than aluminum), but something innnovative, and fresh ... something that goes POP when you see the new design just like going from the G3 to the Titanium Powerbooks.

FloridaBSD

Mar 19, 2008, 01:57 AM

You guys realize of course that no computer manufacturer has ever been known (at least to me) to be "the first guy on the block" with the latest processor technology. IMHO until Apple releases a true 64 bit version of OS X quad core processor would hardly even benefit those among us on the forums here @ macrumors, so again IMHO you would only truly benefit from a quad core processor based mac in a high demand setting such as a server or workstation used for Graphic, Video, or Music Editing and production, other then that you would be wasting you money on a quad core machine for every day use.

Eidorian

Mar 19, 2008, 02:02 AM

IMHO until Apple releases a true 64 bit version of OS X quad core processor...Please elaborate.

FloridaBSD

Mar 19, 2008, 02:29 AM

IMHO to make the switch to a quad core processor, you need a 64 bit operating Frame work to open up the full bandwidth of the processor, so as i said earlier at the present juncture in the Technology sector the only viable place for economical deployment of a quad core or (128 Bit) processor is either in Movie,Music Production and editing, Graphical arts especially applications such as Architecture (in specific use with high processor demand Computer aided Design Programs such as ArchiCAD or Auto Cad) or as mentioned in my prior post The server room.

Eidorian

Mar 19, 2008, 02:39 AM

FloridaBSD

Mar 19, 2008, 02:54 AM

Let me close out by saying that the only place were Apple could benefit from an immediate adoption of the rumored quad core Processors is in the Xserver Product Family Well pardon my assertion that leopard is not a 64bit OS. Moving on, to the subject of the practical setting in which deploy a 128bit based solution, If you think about it the only appropriate application is in situations where high demand rendering applications are being used on a daily basis like In the drafting department of an Architecture / Engineering or Ario Space firm because of the fact that cad is a processor clock cycle hogging application.

Eidorian

Mar 19, 2008, 02:56 AM

Let me close out by sayin that the only place were Apple could benefit from an immediate adoption of the rumored quad core Processors is in the Xserver Product Family I fail to see how the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is a replacement for the Xeon 5400 Series.

bigwig

Mar 19, 2008, 03:46 AM

Eidorian

Mar 19, 2008, 03:48 AM

Actually, a quad-core processor would be a waste of CPU and electricity, unless you're doing compute-intensive stuff. The Xeons and high-zoot graphics they're putting in Xserves is frankly a waste of money. What you want is lots of memory (which is cheap) and a big pipe between memory, disk, and network.Keep in mind that the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is designed to fit the same thermal profile as the current Core 2 Extreme X7900 used in the iMac 2.8 GHz. Quad core iMacs (http://guides.macrumors.com/Core_2_Extreme_QX9300) are a rather hot topic.

I don't see the need to discuss the Xeon or Mac Pro/XServes when this processor is more then likely going to see its first use in the iMac 24".

saltyzoo

Mar 19, 2008, 04:55 AM

Every stat you put in that post is just plain BS. "90% of users don't see a benefit from dual-core"? you have to be kidding me. I would bet nearly 90% of users can subjectively tell a dual core from a single core. It makes a large difference if you are a multi-tasker. Quad cores are much less useful, usually only for rendering graphics, large photoshop transformations, video editing/encoding, etc. Although that will change in the future.
Most people aren't doing large photoshop transformations or video encoding, nor will they. And most of those that do occasionally, don't do it on a regular basis. Do some? Of course. I do. And guess what, I'm one of the ones that actually benefit from dual core. Does my wife? No. She sees no "real" benefit from a dual core cpu. She is far closer to the typical user than I am. In fact, without telling her, I set up a process running in the background to encode video using "one core". It ran two weeks and I asked her how her computer was running every day. She never noticed. And she uses her computer all day long for work.

And your other arbitrary figure of CPU being the bottleneck 10% of the time seems wrong as well. I don't have any technical figures, but I would put the number alot higher than that. Same RAM/HDD, I would bet you see a significant improvement moving from a 1.8Ghz core 2 Duo to a 3.2Ghz core 2 duo, and A LOT more than 10% of the time.

Unless the cpu is close to 100% usage, it's not a significant bottleneck. The typical user never sees cpu usage go over 20% unless there is something wrong. And they think they need a faster cpu if it does. Which is exactly my point. Unless your cpus are pegged at or near 100% more often than not, you don't need more or faster cpus.

eric_n_dfw

Mar 19, 2008, 08:31 AM

Unless the cpu is close to 100% usage, it's not a significant bottleneck. The typical user never sees cpu usage go over 20% unless there is something wrong. And they think they need a faster cpu if it does. Which is exactly my point. Unless your cpus are pegged at or near 100% more often than not, you don't need more or faster cpus.

Using my above example, on a MBP C2D 2.33GHz, in Safari 3.1, I go disney.com and surf around a bit... something my 6 year old child does regularly... all of the Flash UI stuff there pushes both cores on my CPU meter to about 30 - 40% with spikes up around 75%. As processor capacities go up more web sites will be doing rich UI interfaces like that and having multiple browser windows/tabs open to such sites is exactly what multi-cpu/core is good at mitigating.

If you're at 100% CPU you're already using too much. In fact, if you're over 80% I'd bet you could measurably detect a loss in responsiveness. It's kind of like having a 200+HP engine in your car - you don't need that much power most of the time, but when you want to pass someone on the freeway, it's sure nice to have.

sleepingworker

Mar 19, 2008, 08:57 AM

Most people aren't doing large photoshop transformations or video encoding, nor will they. And most of those that do occasionally, don't do it on a regular basis. Do some? Of course. I do. And guess what, I'm one of the ones that actually benefit from dual core. Does my wife? No. She sees no "real" benefit from a dual core cpu. She is far closer to the typical user than I am. In fact, without telling her, I set up a process running in the background to encode video using "one core". It ran two weeks and I asked her how her computer was running every day. She never noticed. And she uses her computer all day long for work.

While it's true that most computer users don't use CAD, PS, Pro Tools, Final Cut Pro, and other visual or audio intensive programs, a larger number of MAC users do in my experience. So many of my MAC friends and colleagues are artists, web designers, architects, film makers, sound editors, musicians, and professional photographers. It makes sense to me that the MAC Pro lines would cater to these needs - even in the laptop since some of us need to keep working even when traveling.

diamond.g

Mar 19, 2008, 09:01 AM

Well, for the last 3-4 years or so, I would imagine factors such as processor microarchitecture (and thus instructions/clock) and cache subsystem would be much more important than clock speed with comparing processors from different generations...

With QPI (same thing as HyperTransport IMHO) L2 cache is not relevant. Everyone here is going to be shocked when Intel stops using crazy big L2 caches on all but the Xeons. I also take it not many people noticed that the Core 2's rely on L2 cache quite a bit more than the K8/K10's do.

lasuther

Mar 19, 2008, 09:40 AM

I don't see the need to discuss the Xeon or Mac Pro/XServes when this processor is more then likely going to see its first use in the iMac 24".

or 30"

A lot of the same arguments about quad core laptops not being necessary are the same people were using for dual core laptops.

MrCrowbar

Mar 19, 2008, 11:13 AM

Can they shrink it down and put it in the Macbook Air? If prices are kept the same, I might get one. :D

EDIT: Expected Reply:
"This is madness!" :-)

FloridaBSD

Mar 19, 2008, 12:48 PM

Rotten Apple

Mar 21, 2008, 01:57 AM

While it's true that most computer users don't use CAD, PS, Pro Tools, Final Cut Pro, and other visual or audio intensive programs, a larger number of MAC users do in my experience. So many of my MAC friends and colleagues are artists, web designers, architects, film makers, sound editors, musicians, and professional photographers. It makes sense to me that the MAC Pro lines would cater to these needs - even in the laptop since some of us need to keep working even when traveling.

If your friends are architects, they're not using MACs. AutoCAD doesn't run on OSX and according to AutoDesk, it never will.

Unless, of course, they bought an overpriced Intel iMac and laid out the additional $300 for the Windows OS.

Every (professional) architect & engineer I know runs AutoCAD & StruCALC on a PC (2.0Ghz Processor, 4Gb of RAM & 500Gb hard drive for under $600, imagine that!)

sleepingworker

Mar 21, 2008, 11:10 AM

If your friends are architects, they're not using MACs. AutoCAD doesn't run on OSX and according to AutoDesk, it never will.

Unless, of course, they bought an overpriced Intel iMac and laid out the additional $300 for the Windows OS.

Every (professional) architect & engineer I know runs AutoCAD & StruCALC on a PC (2.0Ghz Processor, 4Gb of RAM & 500Gb hard drive for under $600, imagine that!)

Uh, there are Computer Aided Design Programs for Mac. And then there is also your solution. As for your pro PC lean in that there are less expensive ways to run these programs ... great! I really don't care what platform you prefer or anyone else. As long as people have choice and are content. Just like I don't care whether someone drives a Taurus or a BMW.

I am surrounded by a family of Mac using Architects btw. We all have our personal experiences.