Intel Discusses Mobile Nehalem. Quad Core Notebooks Coming Next Month. [Archive]

MacRumors

Aug 20, 2008, 10:10 AM

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

Laptopmag covers (http://blog.laptopmag.com/intel-spits-out-the-notebook-news-mobile-quad-core-calpella-wimax-chips) some of the announcements made at Intel's Developer's Forum. The general manager of Intel's Mobility Group Dadi Perlmutter discussed current and future Intel mobile processor technology. These products and features should find their way into Apple laptops over time.

First of all, Perlmutter revealed that high end notebooks with their latest chipsets can now support Quad Core configurations. Quad Core notebooks are currently in production and will be available in a month. Of course, this means that Apple could also support Quad Core configurations in their MacBook Pros. Although Apple's MacBook Pro has been rumored to be undergoing a revision in September, no rumors have pegged Quad Core computing as a feature.

One major focus of the talk was Intel's upcoming processor shift to Nehalem. The next generation mobile platform is known as "Calpella" and is said to make the current systems "pale in comparison". Intel detailed a new technology (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10020589-64.html?hhTest=1) in the Nehalem processors called "Turbo Mode". Turbo Mode allows processors to turn off unused cores for improved power manangement. "Turbo mode requires no operating system intervention. It is fully detected and managed by the hardware. If it has detected an idle core, it is able to reallocate that power budget to the other cores," Gelsinger said in an interview after his keynote.Other changes include (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150038/intel_laptop_platform_to_boost_graphics_power_use.html) the integration of memory controller and the graphics core into the CPU for Nehalem-based laptops. This removes the need for an integrated graphics chipset and should boost graphics performance, though not to the same degree as a dedicated video hardware. Other enhancements are detailed by PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150038/intel_laptop_platform_to_boost_graphics_power_use.html):With between two and eight cores, the speed of Nehalem chips will be enhanced with QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) technology, which integrates a memory controller and provides a faster pipe for chips and system components to communicate. Nehalem will support DDR3 memory and include shared 8M bytes of shared L3 cache for local cores to better execute threads. Each core will be able to execute two software threads simultaneously, so a server with eight processor cores could potentially run 16 threads simultaneously.While the first version of Nehalem's server chips will arrive later this year, the mobile version of Nehalem will not be available until the second half of 2009.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/20/intel-discusses-mobile-nehalem-quad-core-notebooks-coming-next-month/)

kornyboy

Aug 20, 2008, 10:12 AM

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)

Maybe these will show up in the coming line of MBPs.

BenRoethig

Aug 20, 2008, 10:15 AM

I don't think Quad MBPs are going to happen with this revision unless its the 2.2ghz one. The initial chips will targeted at (thick and heavy) DTRs.

Zer0

Aug 20, 2008, 10:15 AM

Damn... hardware ages so fast. My 1 and so year old macbook will feel inadequate in not too long :(

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 10:15 AM

I think the Q9100 2.27GHz 35W TDP mobile quad-core has a decent shot at coming up as a BTO option in the MacBook Pro (perhaps only the 17") and the iMac.

retroneo

Aug 20, 2008, 10:17 AM

Nehalem laptop chips don't have QuickPath....
They don't need it - what would it connect to?

Instead they have the PCI-express controller on board.

Clarksfield (Core i7)
Auburndale (Core i7)
Notebook
Clarksfield
Auburndale - MCM with Integrated Graphics and DDR3 Controller
HyperThreading
On Die PCI Express x16
Socket - 989 pins
DMI Link to Southbridge (PCI Express x4)

Ibexpeak-m Southbridge
DMI Link to CPU (PCI Express x4)
Southbridge Functionality
Connects with Integrated graphics

brendanspah764

Aug 20, 2008, 10:22 AM

I think the Q9100 mobile quad-core has a decent shot at coming up as a BTO option in the MacBook Pro (perhaps only the 17") and the iMac.

Exactly what I was thinking. Macbook Pro and iMac will need to get this as a BTO option. I don't think the MacBook will see this until it is more efficient ok battery life.

gangst

Aug 20, 2008, 10:23 AM

I can't see quad core coming, well at least not as a standard option in the 15" and 17".

Apple never tends to be a very fast adopter of really new hardware, just take PCI-express in the PowerMac's and wireless n in the MacBooks.

I'd expect to see this hitting Alienware, Dell, and other performance notebooks first.

dagamer34

Aug 20, 2008, 10:24 AM

Unless you don't want to have any more children, I'd wait until they shrink to the 32nm process before buying a MacBook Pro with a quad core chip. It's gonna be running too hot otherwise.

Although, I think Apple needs to change it's CPU task scheduler to turn off 2 CPU cores on battery power so it's not running so hot.

G5power

Aug 20, 2008, 10:26 AM

Diode

Aug 20, 2008, 10:31 AM

I see this hitting the imac before the mbp.

Steve's a stickler for battery performance and if these chips are not on par with current chips he won't use them.

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 10:34 AM

Apple won't put a lower-clocked quad-core CPU in the same line as a higher-clocked dual-core CPU. And since only the 2.27 GHz one is said to be 35 W, we won't see these quad-cores in the MacBook Pro and most likely even the iMac. Nehalem won't change this.

It has been hinted (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/05/intel-calpella-info-leaked) that mobile Nehalem will be released on a 32 nm process.

Unless you don't want to have any more children, I'd wait until they shrink to the 32nm process before buying a MacBook Pro with a quad core chip. It's gonna be running too hot otherwise.The 2.27 GHz version is supposedly 35 W, the same TDP as the current dual-core CPUs.

amac4me

Aug 20, 2008, 10:37 AM

Late 2009 is my target as to when I'll replace my current Penryn-based MBP. Oh yeah, I hope it will be running Snow Leopard :cool:

Fidgetyrat

Aug 20, 2008, 10:38 AM

I can actually see this happening in the next month or so. With the last few "updates" to the MBP line being minimal, the margin between MB and MBP being very narrow these days, and the upcoming release of snow leopard, which this will complement well.

I would absolutely jump on it.

BornAgainMac

Aug 20, 2008, 10:42 AM

Now I am curious about that comment about "Calpella" and how it will spank the "Neanderthal" mobile technology.

Digital Skunk

Aug 20, 2008, 10:44 AM

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 10:45 AM

Apple won't put a lower-clocked quad-core CPU in the same line as a higher-clocked dual-core CPU. And since only the 2.27 GHz one is said to be 35 W, we won't see these quad-cores in the MacBook Pro and most likely even the iMac.

I believe they will, they will just do so as a BTO option so they can help explain to customers why a quad-core or a dual-core is the better option for them.

I do not believe they will offer it as a standard model that you will see on their website or Apple Store configurations. Instead, there will be a little balloon/sticker that says "Now available with quad-core CPUs" to get people to ask about it so they can explain it.

zacharytombley

Aug 20, 2008, 10:46 AM

Apple won't put a lower-clocked quad-core CPU in the same line as a higher-clocked dual-core CPU. And since only the 2.27 GHz one is said to be 35 W, we won't see these quad-cores in the MacBook Pro and most likely even the iMac. Nehalem won't change this.

It has been hinted (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/05/intel-calpella-info-leaked) that mobile Nehalem will be released on a 32 nm process.

The 2.27 GHz version is supposedly 35 W, the same TDP as the current dual-core CPUs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MBP only has core duo. So anything said about dual-core doesn't matter.

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 10:50 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MBP only has core duo. So anything said about dual-core doesn't matter.

But one needs to look at it from the mindset of a consumer who is not up-to-speed on current CPU technologies and may still be ingrained with the "MHz Myth" that more clockspeed is faster.

So if Apple's website shows a 2.27GHz Quad-Core iMac at $2199 and a 3.06GHz Dual-Core at $1999, those people will wonder why the most expensive iMac is slower then the cheaper one and just buy the cheaper one, assuming it is actually the "best" because it has a higher clock-speed. Or if both are the same price (since the CPUs are currently priced the same), they'll take the 3.06GHz model because it's faster, so it must therefore be better.

By offering it as a BTO option, Apple can use the web - or an Apple associate - to explain why a slower quad-core will more quickly complete some tasks then a faster dual-core and help the customer make an informed decision as to which one to get.

I also noted that the first notebook quad-core will be 2.4GHz and not 2.53GHz as the QX9300 was expected to be. I wonder if that means Intel is still having problems getting the TDP's down? The QX9300 was supposed to be 45W at 2.53GHZ, but if they had to underclock it, I wonder if that means the Q9100 will be more like 2GHz instead of 2.27GHz to maintain the 35W TDP?

DoFoT9

Aug 20, 2008, 11:04 AM

wow....

just wow...

me want!

ajmetz

Aug 20, 2008, 11:06 AM

If Apple does make announcements next month about updates to the MacBook Pro range, etc, is there any event approaching on the calender that such announcements might be made at? Or will it just come via a press release?

kjs862

Aug 20, 2008, 11:08 AM

This is such a bad time right now for people who need to buy a a laptop like me. With new announcements everyday about new laptops, I really have no idea when to buy.

JG271

Aug 20, 2008, 11:10 AM

Sounds good... i'd be really interested to see how the performance stacks up against a Core 2.
I hope that if quad core laptops are released that it won't raise the price too much.

Fidgetyrat

Aug 20, 2008, 11:11 AM

This is such a bad time right now for people who need to buy a a laptop like me. With new announcements everyday about new laptops, I really have no idea when to buy.

Simple, They WILL update the line, its just a matter of when. Just wait for the next update. It is likely next month and at MOST 6 months from now. Not too long.

goinskiing

Aug 20, 2008, 11:12 AM

This is such a bad time right now for people who need to buy a a laptop like me. With new announcements everyday about new laptops, I really have no idea when to buy.

That's why I bought my MBP two months ago, I just couldn't wait. When I get a new MBP after school (still 2.5 years of EE) then all this fun fancy stuff wil be right at my fingertips, and I can enjoy my current MBP until then.

Though, I'll let it be known that if I could have waited I would have, but I only had a small interval to buy where the stars could align just right.

I almost half-expect a simultaneous launch of mobile Quads and Snow Leopard. That would be quite a way to show off Grand Central. :cool:

Stridder44

Aug 20, 2008, 11:13 AM

There was nothing in that article I didn't like. :D

Nehalem will be awesome.

andiwm2003

Aug 20, 2008, 11:17 AM

ok, do i get this right:

quad core MBP's are possible with a 2.2GHz Quadcore Chip at 35W already this fall?:eek:

end of 2009 we will get most likely Quadcore Nehalem notebooks with integrated memory controller and GPU on the nehalem CPU?

the GPU core in the CPU is far better than the integrated chips today but not as good as dedicated GPU's. That makes it likely apple uses them because they often go for midrange GPU's anyway. Would be fine with me.:)

Wow, this is moving faster than i thought.

batchtaster

Aug 20, 2008, 11:20 AM

riversky

Aug 20, 2008, 11:25 AM

This is such a bad time right now for people who need to buy a a laptop like me. With new announcements everyday about new laptops, I really have no idea when to buy.

You buy when you need to. There is no sense waiting if a current model offers you more power than what you really need. If you always want the latest tech you will never make a purchase because in 3-6 months it will be faster/larger/better.

There is always something better coming along after you buy anytime, no matter what.

alphaod

Aug 20, 2008, 11:27 AM

So it will shut off certain cores and overclock others on the fly? Or what?

Aranince

Aug 20, 2008, 11:32 AM

This is such a bad time right now for people who need to buy a a laptop like me. With new announcements everyday about new laptops, I really have no idea when to buy.

I'm in the same wagon.

Firefly2002

Aug 20, 2008, 11:35 AM

Damn... hardware ages so fast. My 1 and so year old macbook will feel inadequate in not too long :(

Only in your own mind. Does your MBP do everything you want it to do satisfactorily? Yes? Is there anything the new ones will do that you need to do no but can't? Not really?

Then I guess it's perfectly adequate ;)

Hm.

This has got me thinking.... I've been waiting for the new Montevina MBPs, but maybe I should wait for the first Nehalems... would be hard to wait that long though. =\

Mr Maui

Aug 20, 2008, 11:35 AM

What?!? ... No complaints about it not being in a MBA or MacMini yet?? :rolleyes:

lord patton

Aug 20, 2008, 11:35 AM

I just want them to release that 17" (or 18" 16:9 aspect ratio) MacBook Pro redesigned to fit more FW800 ports an eSATA port, two HDDs, and the same wicked sweet GFX cards that multimedia books on the other side are getting now.

They can keep SLI and crossfire, just give me the good $h!t Apple, the real power house laptop.

Maybe they'll come out with a MacBook Beast: 17" hi-res, thicker to accomodate 8 GB RAM, quad-core processors, bigger battery, and better thermal control. It wouldn't be the most portable thing in the world, but I could see video pros wanting it for onsite stuff.

Although I'm not saying there's a very good chance of this ;)

Stridder44

Aug 20, 2008, 11:40 AM

dernhelm

Aug 20, 2008, 11:45 AM

lol I totally remember that. I think the "Turbo Mode" thing had to do with power if I remember correctly (turning off a core to consume less power).

No. It's purpose was to slow the system down so you can run games that used loops to determine timing. Don't laugh, it wasn't always easy to use OS/Bios timers and a lot of people took the "execute 'n' statements in a loop" shortcut.

Press Turbo to run WordPerfect quickly. Turn Turbo off so you game wouldn't run at strange speeds.

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 11:47 AM

So it will shut off certain cores and overclock others on the fly? Or what?

What it will do is power-down unused cores to keep the chip's TDP lower to allow the cores that are in use to run as close to their maximum performance as possible.

digitalbiker

Aug 20, 2008, 11:48 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MBP only has core duo. So anything said about dual-core doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

The MBP does use a dual core processor. It is the intel core2 duo using santa rosa chipset. Everyone is hoping for an update and redesign with the new montevina chipset.

Tibbar

Aug 20, 2008, 11:48 AM

@Stridder44

Yeah, my old PC from 1995 (Pentium 75 MHz) had a Turbo button. Could never get it to do anything, though. Probably didn't have an 80's DOS game to test it on with bad timing.

batchtaster

Aug 20, 2008, 11:55 AM

lol I totally remember that. I think the "Turbo Mode" thing had to do with power if I remember correctly (turning off a core to consume less power).

Ah, the good old days. When you actually had the choice to run your 25MHz PC at 16MHz. Nowadays it's all about getting forcibly frog-marched along at 3.0GHz, like it or not...

This Turbo Mode thing actually sounds not unlike the old Turbo Button; in both cases, for some reason, and contrary to what the name suggests, your processing power gets switched downwards.

Tallest Skil

Aug 20, 2008, 11:59 AM

Maybe these will show up in the coming line of MBPs.

Maybe OS X will get 90% marketshare this year.

Keep dreaming.

odaiwai

Aug 20, 2008, 12:01 PM

Maybe they'll come out with a MacBook Beast: 17" hi-res, thicker to accomodate 8 GB RAM, quad-core processors, bigger battery, and better thermal control. It wouldn't be the most portable thing in the world, but I could see video pros wanting it for onsite stuff.

Although I'm not saying there's a very good chance of this ;)

I agree that the MBP 17" will get the Quads first. As you say: this is the video pro machine, the mobile studio, the "edit the video on the way to where you can upload it" machine.

I can easily see a BTO version of the 17": HD 1920x1200 screen, quad core@2.4Ghz, possibly support for 8GB, 750GB to 1TB drive, or maybe e-sata.

wadejc85

Aug 20, 2008, 12:01 PM

diamond.g

Aug 20, 2008, 12:03 PM

But one needs to look at it from the mindset of a consumer who is not up-to-speed on current CPU technologies and may still be ingrained with the "MHz Myth" that more clockspeed is faster.

So if Apple's website shows a 2.27GHz Quad-Core iMac at $2199 and a 3.06GHz Dual-Core at $1999, those people will wonder why the most expensive iMac is slower then the cheaper one and just buy the cheaper one, assuming it is actually the "best" because it has a higher clock-speed. Or if both are the same price (since the CPUs are currently priced the same), they'll take the 3.06GHz model because it's faster, so it must therefore be better.

By offering it as a BTO option, Apple can use the web - or an Apple associate - to explain why a slower quad-core will more quickly complete some tasks then a faster dual-core and help the customer make an informed decision as to which one to get.

I also noted that the first notebook quad-core will be 2.4GHz and not 2.53GHz as the QX9300 was expected to be. I wonder if that means Intel is still having problems getting the TDP's down? The QX9300 was supposed to be 45W at 2.53GHZ, but if they had to underclock it, I wonder if that means the Q9100 will be more like 2GHz instead of 2.27GHz to maintain the 35W TDP?

Cores are the new Ghz race. Once Intel starts pushing more cores as the norm, people will start to see clock speed in a different way.

One could say the same problem existed with the MacPro. When they went to 4 cores the clock speed wasn't comparable to the 2 core models (note really it means dual quad versus dual dual).
Besides the quad core models can keep up with the dual core models in speed, you just have to throw TDP out the window. A lot of that has to do with none of the Intel quads are native quads. So they have to do some extra work to get the TDP down, whereas Nehalem Core i7 is built from the ground up as a quad core part so TDP has already been factored in. All dual core parts from that stand point will have similar TDP as they will just be quad core parts with cores disabled (or broken).

mdntcallr

Aug 20, 2008, 12:04 PM

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 12:08 PM

Cores are the new Ghz race. Once Intel starts pushing more cores as the norm, people will start to see clock speed in a different way.

I agree. And Snow Leopard will only help drive the point home.

I expect Apple to benefit from Intel's advertising push for quad-core CPUs. It's one area Intel has no competition (I do not believe AMD offers a mobile quad-core CPU) so they'll want to work hard to get people to buy it because the ASPs are so much higher.

And high quad-core CPU prices actually favor Apple since they own two-thirds of the over $2000 retail notebook market. People walking in to buy a $3000 quad-core MacBook Pro won't bat an eyelash - they've been paying nearly that for years. On the flip side, someone used to $1500 Dells is going to be really surprised when they find out the need to spend twice that for a quad-core model...

Tallest Skil

Aug 20, 2008, 12:11 PM

I can easily see a BTO version of the 17": HD 1920x1200 screen, quad core@2.4Ghz, possibly support for 8GB, 750GB to 1TB drive, or maybe e-sata.

MacBook Pros (and OS X) already support drives that large. They don't exist yet.

Dmac77

Aug 20, 2008, 12:13 PM

Please put a quad core in the next MBP Apple!!! I wouldn't feel so bad about having that when Nehalem comes then.

Don

ditzy

Aug 20, 2008, 12:19 PM

I agree that the MBP 17" will get the Quads first. As you say: this is the video pro machine, the mobile studio, the "edit the video on the way to where you can upload it" machine.

I can easily see a BTO version of the 17": HD 1920x1200 screen, quad core@2.4Ghz, possibly support for 8GB, 750GB to 1TB drive, or maybe e-sata.

I honestly can't see the MBP's getting quad core first. I could be completly wrong here but I suspect that it will be the iMacs first as it's easier to keep them cool.

isauce

Aug 20, 2008, 12:19 PM

It will not be in the next MBP, most likely after this revision in Sept. So six months. :D

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 12:22 PM

I honestly can't see the MBP's getting quad core first. I could be completly wrong here but I suspect that it will be the iMacs first as it's easier to keep them cool.

Well the iMac could certainly take the (now) 2.4GHz QX9300 if it's still at 45W TDP.

The current MacBook Pro would need to wait for the slower 35W TDP Q9100 part, however if Apple is indeed changing the MacBook Pro's form factor, it could take into account CPUs with higher TDPs and could possibly handle a 45W QX9300.

odaiwai

Aug 20, 2008, 12:30 PM

MacBook Pros (and OS X) already support drives that large. They don't exist yet.

Well, of course they support the drives. You can plug in a drobo or similar system and get multiple gigs available. My Macbook has a few terabytes of NFS drives available when it's within wireless range of the home network.

But, if there were new drives (and i think there are some 750GB 2.5" in the pipelines), the MBP 17" would be the first to get them.

LeoFio

Aug 20, 2008, 12:33 PM

looks like I will be waiting until the second half of 2009 to replace my 1.5ghz Powerbook G4 :cool: There's no hurry on my part.

whooleytoo

Aug 20, 2008, 12:37 PM

This Turbo Mode thing actually sounds not unlike the old Turbo Button; in both cases, for some reason, and contrary to what the name suggests, your processing power gets switched downwards.

"Nehalam Processors: Now with even slower Turbo"...

A bit like shutting down your Windows machine from the Start menu..

darklyt

Aug 20, 2008, 12:40 PM

Do you think that Snow Leopard is going to ship with a free cage, whip, stool and instructional DVD so that we can learn to tame our beasts? I'm personally feeling the tug of fight-or-flight at the thought of a 16-core Mac Pro decked out with 32(+?)GB of RAM, 4(+)TB HD space, Firewire 3200 coupled with an OS designed to take advantage of the hardware.

The best analogy I can muster (as I wipe the drool from my chin) is putting human consciousness into an actual leopard (or tiger). Totally sick. Imagine how snappy Safari is going to be...

andiwm2003

Aug 20, 2008, 12:43 PM

looks like I will be waiting until the second half of 2009 to replace my 1.5ghz Powerbook G4 :cool: There's no hurry on my part.

i'm in the same boat. my PB 1.5GHz is doing fine. However i want two computers because I'm too dependend on my mac. So i plan to get a 13.3 inch Montevina MB now if I like the redesign. That will be my portable computer.
in 2009 i will buy a quadcore MBP as desktop replacement and retire my PB.

with this stragtegy I get a nice speed increase now with good portability and won't have to feel it's underpowered in 2 years because i bought it for portability. the quadcore MBP will be my workhorse for more heavvy computing.

dissdnt

Aug 20, 2008, 12:45 PM

omg quad core macbook pro, i'm so buying.

hotshotharry

Aug 20, 2008, 12:46 PM

Quad core mini? :-) Oh Yeah !

Superman07

Aug 20, 2008, 12:48 PM

Some people are not being specific enough with their questions and comments. There are two very different chipsets mentioned - quad core versions of the current architecture as well as nahelem mobile chips. The latter of the two will be out at the earliest in 2H 2009.

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 12:49 PM

I also noted that the first notebook quad-core will be 2.4GHz and not 2.53GHz as the QX9300 was expected to be. I wonder if that means Intel is still having problems getting the TDP's down? The QX9300 was supposed to be 45W at 2.53GHZ, but if they had to underclock it, I wonder if that means the Q9100 will be more like 2GHz instead of 2.27GHz to maintain the 35W TDP?OUCH! That's bad news. This could mean that the 2.27 GHz is actually 45 W to maintain the $851 price point. :(:mad::(:mad:

Of course this could mean we can see a 2.13 GHz 35 W $530 quad-core... :p (fat chance)

Sounds good... i'd be really interested to see how the performance stacks up against a Core 2.
I hope that if quad core laptops are released that it won't raise the price too much.Theoretically speaking:

A 2.4 GHz quad-core is 57% faster than a 3.07 GHz dual-core in multithreaded situations but 78% as fast in single-threaded situations.
A 2.27 GHz quad-core is 62% faster than a 2.8 GHz dual-core in multithreaded situations but 81% as fast in single-threaded situations.

Quad-cores also have twice the cache of dual-cores.

Cores are the new Ghz race. Once Intel starts pushing more cores as the norm, people will start to see clock speed in a different way.AMD is well in the core race.

It's obvious that 4-core Nehalem will beat 4-core Shanghai. But what's not obvious is whether 4-core Nehalem will beat the new 6-core CPU, Istanbul, coming in H2 2009. And then early next year AMD will double up Istanbul for a 12-core monster named Magny-Cours. By then Intel will only have 6- and 8-core CPUs for extreme and server parts.

Intel revises the microarchitecture every other year to make a larger and more powerful core. But that can be countered by AMD by just more cores. So just like GT200 vs. (2x) RV770, AMD has the chance to get in the lead with more cores in 2009 and 2010.

I honestly can't see the MBP's getting quad core first. I could be completly wrong here but I suspect that it will be the iMacs first as it's easier to keep them cool.They got the G5s first too. ;)

Marx55

Aug 20, 2008, 12:58 PM

Remember that AMD and ATI have processors with 256 and 800 cores. The race has just started!

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 01:00 PM

Remember that AMD and ATI have processors with 256 and 800 cores. The race has just started!These cores aren't the same as CPU cores.

commander.data

Aug 20, 2008, 01:04 PM

AMD is well in the core race.

It's obvious that 4-core Nehalem will beat 4-core Shanghai. But what's not obvious is whether 4-core Nehalem will beat the new 6-core CPU, Istanbul, coming in H2 2009. And then early next year AMD will double up Istanbul for a 12-core monster named Magny-Cours. By then Intel will only have 6- and 8-core CPUs for extreme and server parts.
Istanbul's targeted launch date of H2 2009 put it more in competition with Westmere which is a 6 core native part rather than Nehalem. And Istanbul's primary focus is probably still in the 4S+ server market where AMD has so far still held up well. Even if Westmere is a bit late, in the server market the 6 core Istanbul will be up against the 8 core Nehalem-EX aka Beckton. And seeing the performance gap in Barcelona where even Core 2 Duos can often match AMD's 4 cores, I wouldn't be surprised if a quad core Nehalem with HT for 8 threads can keep up with a 6 core Istanbul.

diamond.g

Aug 20, 2008, 01:08 PM

AMD is well in the core race.

It's obvious that 4-core Nehalem will beat 4-core Shanghai. But what's not obvious is whether 4-core Nehalem will beat the new 6-core CPU, Istanbul, coming in H2 2009. And then early next year AMD will double up Istanbul for a 12-core monster named Magny-Cours. By then Intel will only have 6- and 8-core CPUs for extreme and server parts.

Intel revises the microarchitecture every other year to make a larger and more powerful core. But that can be countered by AMD by just more cores. So just like GT200 vs. (2x) RV770, AMD has the chance to get in the lead with more cores in 2009 and 2010.

The sad thing is AMD quad cores are already native. That is partly why they lost so much ground to Intel (plus they seem to be having a hard time getting them to scale). I don't know how fast AMD will be able to go to 6 core native. It doesn't seem like their style to just tape two tri core chips together (much like Intel did the quad-core cpus). Intel would be more likely to stitch two native quad core dies together than AMD would.

lostngone

Aug 20, 2008, 01:10 PM

Quad core mini? :-) Oh Yeah !

Apple will have to rename it "Space Heater" if they do that.

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 01:10 PM

AMD is well in the core race.

Intel revises the microarchitecture every other year to make a larger and more powerful core. But that can be countered by AMD by just more cores. So just like GT200 vs. (2x) RV770, AMD has the chance to get in the lead with more cores in 2009 and 2010.

The problem is AMD is likely soon to not have any fabrication facilities as they sell off their fabs (like Dresden) to generate cash to keep them alive. As such, they will need to outsource their entire CPU production and that means their chips will cost more to make then Intel and they will be limited in how many CPUs they can make, overall.

AMD is also so desperate for sales that they continue to push bleeding-edge CPUs into the channel that can't perform to spec because the production processes are broken or under-developed. AMD eventually get the processes right and the later revision versions perform as originally expected, but in the meantime it just allows Intel to smack them silly and push down AMD's ASPs with mid-level CPUs while still raking in the cash with the top-level CPUs.

As such, I expect the first AMD Istanbuls and Magny-Cours to under-perform Intel's top-end Nehalems. As such, Intel will continue to be able to sell their top-end chips at $1000+ and cut the price on the lower-spec Nehalems that match Istanbul and Magny-Cours to keep AMD's ASPs a good deal lower then they wanted.

deputy_doofy

Aug 20, 2008, 01:13 PM

Seems like "Cores" are the new "MHz/GHz." Instead of 100000000000000000000 cores, how about extremely efficient cores, so that it doesn't need so many to be a good processor?

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 01:15 PM

137489

Aug 20, 2008, 01:18 PM

This is such a bad time right now for people who need to buy a a laptop like me. With new announcements everyday about new laptops, I really have no idea when to buy.

as the addage goes - if you need now, buy now. In 6 months it will be out-dated anyway.

I got sick of waiting on all the rumors and bought my macbook in April, and bought my wife a mini about 2-3 weeks ago. Both of us have been very happy.

I also started thinking about a tablet for school. Apple keeps rumoring it to come out, I cannot afford the price of an Axiotron Modbook and I do not want Windows, but I want a full keyboard for when I do type. So, I went to BestBuy and bought a Wacom Bamboo. Yes it is not a true tablet laptop, yes I need a little more deskroom and it is another plug in thing.... This will serve the purpose for my homework and my livescribe pen will serve the purpose for taking notes at school.

I love my Wacom add-on. I went for the lower model (They have a Bamboo Fun that sells for $30 more). The people at Best Buy say the more expensive fun has better accuracy and more options for photo editing or painting, but since I was just looking to turn my mac into a tablet and use it for note taking (handwriting recognition) - this would serve the purpose. I got home, plugged it in, went through the tutorial (you have to go through the entire 5 minute tutorial as options will not be turned on if you do not), turned on inkwell in my system preferences and Presto - my macbook is now a tablet.

Even with my bad handwriting I have 90% accuracy (greater if I slow down and actually scribble legibliy).

I am very interested in all these announcements, but now it comes to need over wants. I do not think I would be upgrading my 2.4 ghz 2gb, 250gb macbook anytime soon - even with this 8 core technology.

dvince2

Aug 20, 2008, 01:20 PM

Belly-laughs

Aug 20, 2008, 01:29 PM

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 01:30 PM

Thanks for the link, iMacmatician.

Dadi Perlmutter of Intel said during his IDF presentation yesterday that the CPU would run at 2.4GHz, which is what threw me. Maybe he didn't get the memo. :)

commander.data

Aug 20, 2008, 01:31 PM

Westmere's coming in H1 2010, right when Magny-Cours is expected.
http://www.canardplus.com/dossier-35-200-Processeur_de_Nehalem_a_Haswell.html

The Tick-Tock strategy has always targeted 2009 as the introduction year of 32nm processors. Of course, this'll likely only mean a Q4 2009 introduction of Westmere in server and high-end desktop just like Nehalem.

And in terms of Magny-Cours, a competitor is very easy for Intel to do either via a dual die approach with on die QPI links which is what Magny-Cours may well be (with HT links of course) or a native 12-core processor, since the architecture is designed such that the shared L3 cache is external (part of the uncore) to the processing core so as many cores as needed can be attached to the L3 cache. Of course a native 12 core is not that likely due to production yields.

min_t

Aug 20, 2008, 01:32 PM

Damn... hardware ages so fast. My 1 and so year old macbook will feel inadequate in not too long :(

Actually, technology-wise, your macbook is Medicare-eligible already.

137489

Aug 20, 2008, 01:34 PM

"Turbo Mode"? Seriously? Surely I can't be the only person who immediately thinks of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button)?

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/creepingnet2001/flight386sx/718dscd.jpg

(aka the pointless "Slow"/"Very Slow" button)

Wow that brings back 386/486 memories and basically if you did not have turbo turned on, your system was slower than ever. Basically what I remember (especially with SX machines) was that the SX was due to the chip's math co-processor failed so they were putting these out and charging double for a DX processor with a math co-processor. the turbo was a way for the motherboard to simulate an over clock (actually it just made the CPU run a normal speed instead of the slowed down installed speed) in order to try to compensate for the lack of the co-processor. At anyrate I do not remember anyone who ran the machines with turbo turned off.

I think this article has a mis-wording. Maybe it should say hyper-threading? Hyper-threading has been around but went away briefly since Windows Apps and Web Apps tended to get hung with it turned on. they are supposed to have fixed hyper-threading and bringing it back. I remember going to all our servers and turning hyper-threading off so that they would stay running.

ColonelBlaha

Aug 20, 2008, 01:34 PM

well as long as quad-core doesnt get so hot using all its cores that it would fuse a laptop to...well...my lap, i'd be down with it

regardless I'm just waiting for the new mbp to replace my stolen dell, itd be a little added bonus if quad-core was part of that, but no big deal if it wasnt

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 01:39 PM

http://www.canardplus.com/dossier-35-200-Processeur_de_Nehalem_a_Haswell.html

The Tick-Tock strategy has always targeted 2009 as the introduction year of 32nm processors. Of course, this'll likely only mean a Q4 2009 introduction of Westmere in server and high-end desktop just like Nehalem. Looks like it could be H1 2010.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2008/0326/kaigai428.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2008/0326/kaigai428.htm%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://microboy.seesaa.net/article/95885389.html

http://microboy.up.seesaa.net/image/roadmap.png

On the flip side, it has been rumored that both the Atom and mobile Nehalem will see 32 nm versions in late 2009.

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 01:41 PM

Basically what I remember (especially with SX machines) was that the SX was due to the chip's math co-processor failed so they were putting these out and charging double for a DX processor with a math co-processor.

The 80386 did not have an integrated math coprocessor (FPU). The 80387 was offered as a separate math coprocessor part. Weitek also made a higher-performance math coprocessor that could be used, instead.

The 80386SX used a 16-bit memory path as opposed to the 32-bit path of the 80386. This allowed the use of cheaper motherboards and memory while still allowing 32-bit code to be executed.

The 80486 was the first Intel CPU with an integrated FPU. The 80486SX was an 80486 with the FPU disabled and was offered at lower cost. Some were 80486s that had hardware defects in their FPUs, but Intel also disabled the functional FPUs on some 80486s and later went to a new 80486 die that didn't have an FPU.

If you later decided you wanted/needed the FPU, you bought the 80487SX which was a fully-functional 80486 and when inserted into it's slot, disabled the 80486SX.

Stridder44

Aug 20, 2008, 01:49 PM

@Stridder44

Yeah, my old PC from 1995 (Pentium 75 MHz) had a Turbo button. Could never get it to do anything, though. Probably didn't have an 80's DOS game to test it on with bad timing.

Psh, I remember my buddy's computer at the time had an actual number display showing at how many Mhz it was running (which was 75, but it was 3 digit, so, I mean, it COULD have been 999 :p). Good times.

8CoreWhore

Aug 20, 2008, 01:53 PM

For those that didn't read the article... These will only use all 4 cores if all are needed. In which case, it's probably not on your lap while you're sitting under a tree. So, they will be very energy efficient for casual use. The MBP is a definite candidate for these new chips. It's a matter of when, not if.:D

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 01:57 PM

Psh, I remember my buddy's computer at the time had an actual number display showing at how many Mhz it was running (which was 75, but it was 3 digit, so, I mean, it COULD have been 999 :p). Good times.I used to have a computer that had one of those. It said 66 or 166 depending on whether or not the Turbo mode was on.

Marx55

Aug 20, 2008, 02:03 PM

These cores aren't the same as CPU cores.

Sure, but Intel Recommends Developers Plan for Massive Multi-Core Processing:
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/06/intel-recommends-developers-plan-for-massive-multi-core-processing
"Ultimately, the advice I’ll offer is that these developers should start thinking about tens, hundreds, and thousands of cores now in their algorithmic development and deployment pipeline".

More:

Intel, Microsoft: Multi-core chips need new developer skills
http://www.macworld.com/article/132630/2008/03/multicore.html
"Expect x86 servers with as many as 64 processor cores in 2009 and desktops with that many by 2012".

Industry Group to Establish OpenCL Standard
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/17/industry-group-to-establish-opencl-standard
"According to the president of the Khronos group, this technology could be used in both desktop and handheld devices in the future".

namethisfile

Aug 20, 2008, 02:05 PM

Wow that brings back 386/486 memories and basically if you did not have turbo turned on, your system was slower than ever. Basically what I remember (especially with SX machines) was that the SX was due to the chip's math co-processor failed so they were putting these out and charging double for a DX processor with a math co-processor. the turbo was a way for the motherboard to simulate an over clock (actually it just made the CPU run a normal speed instead of the slowed down installed speed) in order to try to compensate for the lack of the co-processor. At anyrate I do not remember anyone who ran the machines with turbo turned off.

I think this article has a mis-wording. Maybe it should say hyper-threading? Hyper-threading has been around but went away briefly since Windows Apps and Web Apps tended to get hung with it turned on. they are supposed to have fixed hyper-threading and bringing it back. I remember going to all our servers and turning hyper-threading off so that they would stay running.

our fisrt PC was a packard bell 386sx 16mhz. good times. i then upgraded it with a cyrix chip that piggy-backed on top of the 386sx processor which was soldered unto the motherboard, if i remember correctly. i think this added the math co processor and made windows 3.1 snappier. does anyone remember the cyrix chip?

THX1139

Aug 20, 2008, 02:18 PM

You buy when you need to. There is no sense waiting if a current model offers you more power than what you really need. If you always want the latest tech you will never make a purchase because in 3-6 months it will be faster/larger/better.

There is always something better coming along after you buy anytime, no matter what.

Your argument for NOT waiting falls apart if the person NEEDS as much power as they can get and requires portability. With the newer and much faster technology that is coming out now, it make sense to wait as long as you can. Sure, if you don't need the power that 4 cores will offer, or you absolutely need a new machine NOW, then of course, don't wait. But I'd hate to be the guy who needs processing power (3d while on the road?) and buys a currently shipping Macbook Pro (along with the defective video card), only to have a brand new updated laptop come out the next month.

Sure, I agree... there is always something better coming along... and it's often better to just buy when you need it. But in this particular case, the next Macbook Pro revision is very very close to coming out (based on Apple release history)... and the currently shipping product incorporates a known defective video card issue that is not being resolved. That's reason enough to hold off as long as possible.

Source (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-g84-g86-chips-overheating,6121.html)

I believe that the next Macbook Pro will see a slight update (new graphics but no case revision) and ship end of September. It will serve as a hold over until the newly redesigned Macbook Pro with Nehalem is revealed next year.

Fidgetyrat

Aug 20, 2008, 02:22 PM

I believe that the next Macbook Pro will see a slight update (new graphics but no case revision) and ship end of September. It will serve as a hold over until the newly redesigned Macbook Pro with Nehalem is revealed next year.

Trouble is, that argument can go on forever. If we're waiting for Nehalem, why not just wait a bit longer for the next bigger and better thing. I believe Apple realizes how out of date the MBP is and how close the cheaper MB line is to the "Pro" line. Based on the minute additions to the last hike, I can see them pushing something big, especially in time for the holidays.

At least I'm hoping they do. My Tibook can hardly load websites anymore :(

Shot22

Aug 20, 2008, 02:29 PM

Quad-core would be fine, as long as it doesn't delay the release of the new MBP.

137489

Aug 20, 2008, 02:30 PM

Actually, technology-wise, your macbook is Medicare-eligible already.

ouch, your hard on him. Truthfully.

1. Unless you are a Geek and want the fastest now.
2. Unless you are using them to support your business.
3. Unless you use power-hungry apps.

The average person can get by on 2-3 years with a machine before feeling the need to upgrade.

I also worked for a rather large company that is still using PDP-11's/VAX mainframes running 1970 technology, Office 97, Pentium 2 and 3 machines, Macromedia 3 or 4 (they were told they had to upgrade to the now obsolete MX 2004 studio before they could upgrade the apps to the newest versions for what they needed - they waited so long, they needed to re-write and upgrade just to get them to the point of being able to re-write and upgrade to get what they needed to implement). Most of their machines were still running Windows 2000 and NT. 80% of their apps were not certified to run on XP or 2003 server.

So I would not look at your machine feeling old. I look at it being old, if it is too slow or no longer supports my needs or it is dying/dead. to me on a windows machine, you need to upgrade ever 2-3 years (the machine will probably be dead in that time anyway). Apple, maybe every 2 1/2 - 5; unless something new and way exciting comes out that warrents more memory and processing power. Again, only you can decide.

I had a 2000 or 2001 toshiba laptop that got 5 hrs on a battery charge. It was running XP home (when it first came out). I upgraded the hard drive to 100gb, and the ram to 1gb. It had only a DVD-ROM (did not even burn CD's). It was the best little laptop I had. It was just too slow to handle a special app. Stupid me gave it away to my pastor and bought a dell. The Dell did not last 2 years before it died. the Toshiba... My Pastor is still using it. 8 yrs old and running strong.

But now I have a mac and I hope to get 4-5 years out of it.

Stridder44

Aug 20, 2008, 02:31 PM

bpl323

Aug 20, 2008, 02:34 PM

Maybe now I'll have to consider getting a MBP.

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 02:38 PM

I believe that the next Macbook Pro will see a slight update (new graphics but no case revision) and ship end of September. It will serve as a hold over until the newly redesigned Macbook Pro with Nehalem is revealed next year.Not pointing the finger at anybody, but given all the rumors pointing to an imminent case redesign of the notebooks, why do people still say that there will only be a slight update this year and a redesign next year?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Nehalem won't do anything for gaming (it's Intel's answer to the server market and AMD's domination).

For more info, see here: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480And it won't increase theoretical FLOPS nor reduce TDP. Nehalem's strengths lie elsewhere.

skellener

Aug 20, 2008, 02:47 PM

Don't forget having a blu-ray reading superdrive. alot of us want that also, with option for a bd burning superdrive.No blu-ray drives until FCP Studio is updated to author blu-ray discs. And then it will be in Mac Pros as build to order. You won't see a blu-ray drive in a Mac laptop for a very long time.

theBB

Aug 20, 2008, 02:50 PM

So if Apple's website shows a 2.27GHz Quad-Core iMac at $2199 and a 3.06GHz Dual-Core at $1999, those people will wonder why the most expensive iMac is slower then the cheaper one and just buy the cheaper one, assuming it is actually the "best" because it has a higher clock-speed. Or if both are the same price (since the CPUs are currently priced the same), they'll take the 3.06GHz model because it's faster, so it must therefore be better.

By offering it as a BTO option, Apple can use the web - or an Apple associate - to explain why a slower quad-core will more quickly complete some tasks then a faster dual-core and help the customer make an informed decision as to which one to get.
If the program you are running does not take advantage of multiple cores, the lower clock speed will slow you down. Based on Macworld's MacPro and iMac tests, it seems Photoshop and iMovie HD are among these which perform more or less according to clock speed regardless of whether they have 2 or 8 cores. There are other ones that speed up a bit with additional cores, but not as much as the increase in cores would suggest. With those programs more cores may barely make up for the lower clock speed.

Thus, for the next few years consumers might do better by sticking with clock speed (assuming the comparison is among the same generation of CPUs, not with the previous ones, as there are other features that speed things up.)

CWallace

Aug 20, 2008, 02:54 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Nehalem won't do anything for gaming (it's Intel's answer to the server market and AMD's domination).

With Bloomfield / Core i7 using the same LGA1366 socket and QuickPath chipsets as the server and workstation CPUs, even in it's "performance" and "mainstream" forms, it will be more expensive then the LGA1160 CPUs like Havendale and Lynnfield in the same categories.

Ed Stroglio at Overclockers.com refers to Bloomfield as the "luxury CPU line" and an attempt by Intel to move the "Extreme" moniker from just one or two CPUs in a line to an entire line of CPUs. And since gamers tend to migrate to the most powerful single CPU platforms, I would not be surprised to see the "ultimate" gaming rigs from retailers like HP/Voodoo and Dell/Alienware to use Bloomfields, even with cheaper Havendale and Lynnfield CPUs available.

diamond.g

Aug 20, 2008, 03:31 PM

If the program you are running does not take advantage of multiple cores, the lower clock speed will slow you down. Based on Macworld's MacPro and iMac tests, it seems Photoshop and iMovie HD are among these which perform more or less according to clock speed regardless of whether they have 2 or 8 cores. There are other ones that speed up a bit with additional cores, but not as much as the increase in cores would suggest. With those programs more cores may barely make up for the lower clock speed.

Thus, for the next few years consumers might do better by sticking with clock speed (assuming the comparison is among the same generation of CPUs, not with the previous ones, as there are other features that speed things up.)

Same argument was used with the migration to dual core from single core...

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 03:33 PM

If the program you are running does not take advantage of multiple cores, the lower clock speed will slow you down. Based on Macworld's MacPro and iMac tests, it seems Photoshop and iMovie HD are among these which perform more or less according to clock speed regardless of whether they have 2 or 8 cores. NOOOOOOOO!!!!

Come on Apple, make iLife '09 multi-core savvy!

Ed Stroglio at Overclockers.com refers to Bloomfield as the "luxury CPU line" and an attempt by Intel to move the "Extreme" moniker from just one or two CPUs in a line to an entire line of CPUs. Westmere's supposed to have either 4 or 6 cores depending on the source… maybe both? 6-core Westmere could be an even more premium line.

morespce54

Aug 20, 2008, 03:37 PM

What?!? ... No complaints about it not being in a MBA or MacMini yet?? :rolleyes:

As long as they have BluRay!!!! ;)

!¡ V ¡!

Aug 20, 2008, 03:53 PM

!¡ V ¡!

Aug 20, 2008, 03:57 PM

As long as they have BluRay!!!! ;)

Why even bother with Blu-Ray when Flash, Holographic and, Crystal(future) storage holds a magnitude of data, which makes Blu-Ray seem like a Floppy Disc. Blu-Ray is pointless, too many limitations on either the hardware or software side regarding encoding and decoding for the consumer and costly for the manufactures. :rolleyes:

Manic Mouse

Aug 20, 2008, 04:10 PM

Seems like "Cores" are the new "MHz/GHz." Instead of 100000000000000000000 cores, how about extremely efficient cores, so that it doesn't need so many to be a good processor?

Isn't the reason we have multiple cores because it's more efficient than what you're suggesting. They can make a quad core 2.2Ghz at 35W, but they can't make a dual core at 4.4Ghz at 35W.

andiwm2003

Aug 20, 2008, 04:12 PM

The Tall One

Aug 20, 2008, 04:15 PM

I wonder if the idea of a desktop computer is slowly being weeded out. For personal use I mean.

fanbrain

Aug 20, 2008, 04:21 PM

No. It's purpose was to slow the system down so you can run games that used loops to determine timing. Don't laugh, it wasn't always easy to use OS/Bios timers and a lot of people took the "execute 'n' statements in a loop" shortcut.

Press Turbo to run WordPerfect quickly. Turn Turbo off so you game wouldn't run at strange speeds.

I remember playing tanks without the turbo mode on. Instant response. I didn't have to wait for the jackhammer round to sail through the air. It was there as soon as you pressed fire. Ahh the days...

!¡ V ¡!

Aug 20, 2008, 04:25 PM

well, we are concerned with the computers af this century, not next.:rolleyes:

We are but only at the infancy of this century and we are still tinkering with previous centuries technology. Get a move on Intel, AMD and the rest I rather not mention. ;):D

!¡ V ¡!

Aug 20, 2008, 04:28 PM

I remember playing tanks without the turbo mode on. Instant response. I didn't have to wait for the jackhammer round to sail through the air. It was there as soon as you pressed fire. Ahh the days...

If my memory does not fail me, the turbo on those computer gave the user the options similar to Energy Saver Option in the System Preferences Panel to either cook your computer to run circles of data cycles or be on the safe and wait for your coffee to be prepared which a a task was eventually completed.

Ah the marvels of computing, what was once hardware is not translated to the software side. :D

!¡ V ¡!

Aug 20, 2008, 04:31 PM

I wonder if the idea of a desktop computer is slowly being weeded out. For personal use I mean.

The desktop and workstation of present have more computing power then the servers a decade past. So yes a major leap has to happen for servers in-order to hold they market place when compared to consumer machines.

Wolfpup

Aug 20, 2008, 04:34 PM

I'm not holding my breath for high end stuff like a quad core in Apple's notebooks...although stranger things have happened and I'd love to be wrong (love a truly high-end notebook from them that ditches this 1" profile and is built to dissipate heat and really be pushed, has a high end GPU, etc.).

And regarding this "Turbo Mode", I thought Penryn already added the ability to shut down one core when not in use? Of course all my CPUs and GPUs are ALWAYS running full blast, because I run Folding at Home-and so should everything, darn it! :)

gnasher729

Aug 20, 2008, 05:05 PM

Isn't the reason we have multiple cores because it's more efficient than what you're suggesting. They can make a quad core 2.2Ghz at 35W, but they can't make a dual core at 4.4Ghz at 35W.

if everything else is equal, power consumption grows with the square of the clock speed. So with identical technology, a single 4.4 GHz chip would take four times the power of a single 2.2 GHz chip; a dual 4.4 GHz chip would take twice the power of a quad 2.2 GHz, that is 70 Watt instead of 35. You could build 2 chips at 41.42% higher speed at the same power; but the quad chip would have 41 percent more performance at the same number of watts.

DiamondMac

Aug 20, 2008, 05:23 PM

Damn... hardware ages so fast. My 1 and so year old macbook will feel inadequate in not too long :(

Ha, I remember buying my MBP a year and a half ago and feeling like it was top-notch but it sure got out-paced quickly :D

Eidorian

Aug 20, 2008, 05:26 PM

I wonder if the idea of a desktop computer is slowly being weeded out. For personal use I mean.It's all about shrinking the desktop and distribution. At least that's where I see the direction of personal computing.

137489

Aug 20, 2008, 05:26 PM

I wonder if the idea of a desktop computer is slowly being weeded out. For personal use I mean.

Well, most people buy laptops - because we are the on-the-go society. to me the only advantage of a desk top is:

dual screens
not having to unplug everything
Easier to upgrade yourself (even that is becoming less of an issue)
larger than 17'' screens
more internal drive space rather than having a bunch of drives hogging USB's. (But even with larger laptop drives coming out - that is even becoming a non-issue)

Plus, the power in today's laptop equals that of a desk top. Not like years ago when a laptop was barely functional and if you wanted to do any real apps, you needed the power of a desk top.

Besides, who personally really sits at a table or desk to do their computing anymore (for personal use). we are either outside, at starbucks, on the couch. the only time I sit at a table with my personal machine is when i am paying bills or doing taxes and I need room for the paperwork. The only other time I actually sit at a table or desk is for work.

Other than that my laptop is on the couch with me, at starbucks, over someone's home, outside on the porch, on the kitchen table, etc.

No one really goes off to a dedicated area in their home (well, unless you are hiding and looking at.......). Plus with a laptop, you don't need furniture taking up space just to hold it.

ChrisA

Aug 20, 2008, 05:29 PM

The desktop and workstation of present have more computing power then the servers a decade past. So yes a major leap has to happen for servers in-order to hold they market place when compared to consumer machines.

What? The people who build servers have not stopped. Desk tops machine have not caught up. If you look at the Sun M8000. It is the first machine in the line of Sun enterprize class servers, the others are much larger. The M8000 has up to 32 PCIe slots, 16 quad core CPUs and 512GB of RAM. Some other neat features are that you can swap out parts like a CPU, RAM or a power supply without taking the system down. Failed parts can be replaced without any down time.

Here is a fun web site where you get to configure a system. Looks like Apple's web site where you can configure a Mac Pro. What's your credit card limit?
http://shop.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewStandardCatalog-Browse?CategoryName=Sun_Fire_E25K&CategoryDomainName=Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US-SunCatalog

morespce54

Aug 20, 2008, 05:29 PM

Why even bother with Blu-Ray when Flash, Holographic and, Crystal(future) storage holds a magnitude of data, which makes Blu-Ray seem like a Floppy Disc. Blu-Ray is pointless, too many limitations on either the hardware or software side regarding encoding and decoding for the consumer and costly for the manufactures. :rolleyes:

I know you got the joke...
It's good for selling movies that you'll have to buy again later 'tho! ;)

Unless you can convert them... with a Blu-Ray drive...
OMG, that's the studios' evil plan to stop pirating. Sell movies on doomed media!!! ;):)

137489

Aug 20, 2008, 05:29 PM

We are but only at the infancy of this century and we are still tinkering with previous centuries technology. Get a move on Intel, AMD and the rest I rather not mention. ;):D

I think you mean decades not centuries... You make it sound like computers have been around for over 100 years. :p but hey, you know why identity theft is so high in America. Because the banks are too cheap to move away from 1960's magnetic strip credit cards to cards that have a smart chip and require you to put in a pin for each debit and credit purchase. I hear in Europe they have this technology and Identity theft is way down.

viccles

Aug 20, 2008, 05:36 PM

I've sold my MB - now I wait :D

137489

Aug 20, 2008, 05:36 PM

What? The people who build servers have not stopped. Desk tops machine have not caught up. If you look at the Sun M8000. It is the first machine in the line of Sun enterprize class servers, the others are much larger. The M8000 has up to 32 PCIe slots, 16 quad core CPUs and 512GB of RAM. Some other neat features are that you can swap out parts like a CPU, RAM or a power supply without taking the system down. Failed parts can be replaced without any down time.

Here is a fun web site where you get to configure a system. Looks like Apple's web site where you can configure a Mac Pro. What's your credit card limit?
http://shop.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewStandardCatalog-Browse?CategoryName=Sun_Fire_E25K&CategoryDomainName=Sun_NorthAmerica-Sun_Store_US-SunCatalog

Swap out or add memory/CPU's without taking the system down????? Dang..... Can it run windows Server??? :p man we need those for our SQL boxes.... I am forever asking a hospital to have down time to add more memory......

16 quad core CPUs and 512GB of RAM. - oh man, put that in a laptop and I would never need a machine again (nor a furnace for my home either :p)

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 05:41 PM

137489

Aug 20, 2008, 06:15 PM

I think you mean decades not centuries... You make it sound like computers have been around for over 100 years. :p but hey, you know why identity theft is so high in America. Because the banks are too cheap to move away from 1960's magnetic strip credit cards to cards that have a smart chip and require you to put in a pin for each debit and credit purchase. I hear in Europe they have this technology and Identity theft is way down.

Funny, I just post something about identity theft, then I go and look at CNN news and there is an acticle about it. Look at what they list as #5 for the way to protect yourself.

5. Thinking your Mac shields you from all risks

Yes, Macs are much less susceptible to viruses and spyware than PCs. But surveys show that may breed a false sense of security among Mac owners, who still fall prey to phishing scams at about the same rate as Windows users.

Until Apple beefs up Safari, Fox recommends using another browser with phishing protection, such as the latest version of Firefox.

THX1139

Aug 20, 2008, 06:25 PM

Trouble is, that argument can go on forever. If we're waiting for Nehalem, why not just wait a bit longer for the next bigger and better thing. ...

At least I'm hoping they do. My Tibook can hardly load websites anymore :(

I have never advocated for waiting until Nehalem next year! That would be ludicrous if you need a machine. I'm talking about the next incremental update that WILL take place BEFORE next year. The next bigger and better thing is only a month away if you go by Apples history. You do realize that the MBP hasn't been updated in 6 months? And the previous update to Santa Rosa is a year ago! What I'm going to do is wait until next month... a measly 30 days... to see what happens. I'm motivated not so much that I want the next best thing... but that the currently shipping MBPs are crap due to the video card issue. Sure they "might" be okay... but I prefer to not spend all that money on a time bomb.

By the way... if you're relying on a Tibook for your main computer, you are a classic example of someone who HAS waited too long to upgrade.

Stridder44

Aug 20, 2008, 06:37 PM

Why even bother with Blu-Ray when Flash, Holographic and, Crystal(future) storage holds a magnitude of data, which makes Blu-Ray seem like a Floppy Disc. Blu-Ray is pointless, too many limitations on either the hardware or software side regarding encoding and decoding for the consumer and costly for the manufactures. :rolleyes:

This is a joke right?

EDIT: Nevermind. It was. As much as I'm excited about Blu-ray, it probably will be (at least) a year before we see them in Macs (and I'm only talking about the Mac Pro).

Bubba Satori

Aug 20, 2008, 06:41 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Nehalem won't do anything for gaming (it's Intel's answer to the server market and AMD's domination).

For more info, see here: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480

Correct. Nehalem is big for servers and workstations. For consumers web surfing, emailing, playing games and fiddling with music and photos, they won't notice a difference, except a smaller wallet. :D

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 06:44 PM

Eidorian

Aug 20, 2008, 06:45 PM

The advantages of Nehalem are greatest for the MP server area and least for the desktop and mobile areas.QPI love for multiple, multiple sockets.

Not that us mere mortals won't appreciate the faster Nehalem processors...

n8236

Aug 20, 2008, 08:51 PM

OMG OMG OMG, I'm SO excited if this is true! I can finally run Snow Leopard w/ 2 cores and 2gbs of ram and the same w/ Fusion running Vista. It will be the ULTIMATE machine for me.

BigD58

Aug 20, 2008, 08:55 PM

Damn... hardware ages so fast. My 1 and so year old macbook will feel inadequate in not too long :(

Ha I totally agree! It makes me so sad because I always want the best machine but I can never keep up with technology. And plus i have the original 2.0Ghz Macbook (black).:(

zmonster

Aug 20, 2008, 09:45 PM

Plus, the power in today's laptop equals that of a desk top. Not like years ago when a laptop was barely functional and if you wanted to do any real apps, you needed the power of a desk top.

I don't quite agree with this. The MacPro desktops KILL the MacBook Pro laptops in performance mainly because the system bus and other data channels are much, much wider and faster. You can also get a much hotter/higher-cycle CPU into a desktop due to the better cooling. I think the 8-core Mac Pro is at LEAST 2x faster than the MacBook Pro (if not more).

I think this will be the case for quite a few years to come, too. I doubt we'll see laptop performance equal desktop until sometime in 2012. But yes, you're right, it will eventually happen.

zmonster

Aug 20, 2008, 09:53 PM

Correct. Nehalem is big for servers and workstations. For consumers web surfing, emailing, playing games and fiddling with music and photos, they won't notice a difference, except a smaller wallet. :D

That article seems to imply a current Xeon processor system with a great graphics card would be just as powerful to the average user as a Nehalem system. I don't know if I would agree with this. The Nehalem has a much faster and wider memory channel. I think desktop applications that do video processing would benefit greatly on Nehalem. Games, not so much.

nick9191

Aug 20, 2008, 09:56 PM

PVguy

Aug 20, 2008, 10:45 PM

"The average person can get by on 2-3 years with a machine before feeling the need to upgrade. "

More like 5 to 6. My 2002 Quicksilver at home (admittedly it's the dual 1 GHz G4) is still doing fine. Compressing movies is an overnight affair, but it's not like I have to watch it. Now if I was relying on the 800 Mhz single processor G4 I use for a server, I might be less satisfied.

At work I have 5 year old P4, non-hyperthreading. It's good most of the time, even with Office 2007. With Office 2003 I rarely noticed a lag. It got a memory upgrade to 2 GB, which fixed some but not all of it's issues. I am nowhere near the top of the upgrade list, so it's good that it works as well as it does. (Integrated graphics, by the way, Vista won't even think about loading, not that IT is doing anything with Vista but laughing themselves into side stitches watch it crater our vertical market apps. We can't even upgrade from IE 6 due to weird apps that absolutely must have some Active-X security hole to work at all.)

This is good news for my upgrade mantra: Nehalem AND Snow Leopard AND slots AND <$1000 (without monitor, $1200 with) ELSE Ubuntu. Target date; Labor Day 2009.

viccles

Aug 20, 2008, 11:40 PM

I am wanting to buy a MBP around January. Hopefully there will be a big update by then!

iMacmatician

Aug 20, 2008, 11:56 PM

I don't quite agree with this. The MacPro desktops KILL the MacBook Pro laptops in performance mainly because the system bus and other data channels are much, much wider and faster. You can also get a much hotter/higher-cycle CPU into a desktop due to the better cooling. I think the 8-core Mac Pro is at LEAST 2x faster than the MacBook Pro (if not more). Theoretically the 3.2 GHz 8-core Mac Pro is 4.9x as fast (CPU wise) as the 2.6 GHz MacBook Pro. There's no comparison.

I think this will be the case for quite a few years to come, too. I doubt we'll see laptop performance equal desktop until sometime in 2012. But yes, you're right, it will eventually happen.With laptops getting thinner (*cough* MacBook Air *cough*) and desktops not, the gap will only get wider.

Desktops haven't caught up with servers in performance, so laptops won't catch up with desktops.

fad1

Aug 20, 2008, 11:56 PM

I am wanting to buy a MBP around January. Hopefully there will be a big update by then!

I'm hoping for a new designed macbook next month.

twoodcc

Aug 21, 2008, 12:02 AM

can't wait to see quad chips in the macbook pro. hopefully it'll happen next month

rawd

Aug 21, 2008, 12:13 AM

Once I see a quad core MBP with Bluray, this is when I will finally upgrade from my PB G4 :)

isauce

Aug 21, 2008, 12:17 AM

Once I see a quad core MBP with Bluray, this is when I will finally upgrade from my PB G4 :)

Amen.

RoDe

Aug 21, 2008, 01:45 AM

It all sounds nice a quad core proc.. But if it drains the battery a fast as it does my 2.6Ghz MBP than no thanks.

.Chris

Aug 21, 2008, 01:48 AM

I am wanting to buy a MBP around January. Hopefully there will be a big update by then!

by september bro

I'm hoping for a new designed macbook next month.

+1

It all sounds nice a quad core proc.. But if it drains the battery a fast as it does my 2.6Ghz MBP than no thanks.

True, but again theres always room for a better battery. open your mind more kids :rolleyes:

tristan

Aug 21, 2008, 01:54 AM

No. It's purpose was to slow the system down so you can run games that used loops to determine timing.

Exactly. "Turbo" reminds me of my old 12 MHz 286, a fifty pound FULL TOWER monstrosity with a handle on top so you could drag it around if you were willing to pull your arm out of its socket...

Turbo is really the dumbest name, it smacks of 80s American Gladiators, and besides doesn't Intel already have "Turbo Flash memory" or something? So I'll hold out for the XTreme version, those are always more k-rad... err, i mean pimpin'.

teme

Aug 21, 2008, 02:06 AM

We are replacing old desktop PC's with Macbook Pro's at my work, hopefully the new models will be out soon because we can't wait much longer.

gnasher729

Aug 21, 2008, 03:27 AM

I think you mean decades not centuries... You make it sound like computers have been around for over 100 years. :p but hey, you know why identity theft is so high in America. Because the banks are too cheap to move away from 1960's magnetic strip credit cards to cards that have a smart chip and require you to put in a pin for each debit and credit purchase. I hear in Europe they have this technology and Identity theft is way down.

The magnetic strip vs. pin number doesn't make that much difference. You just collect information about a victim (it is really a good idea to buy a cheap shredder and destroy any papers with your name on before you throw them away), then apply for a credit card in their name, then you get a card together with matching pin number. For good measure send a letter to the post office that your address has changed; would be stupid if the intended victim gets their credit cards instead of you. And then you start buying things.

viccles

Aug 21, 2008, 03:33 AM

I wouldn't be totally opposed to an aluminum macbook either really.

isoceles

Aug 21, 2008, 03:41 AM

These are the things I want to see for the MBP in Sept:
1. Updated case/keyboard
2. Upgraded gpu
3. Faster/more efficient cpu
4. Bluer-Ray option

Tallest Skil

Aug 21, 2008, 03:45 AM

These are the things I want to see for the MBP in Sept:
1. Updated case/keyboard
2. Upgraded gpu
3. Faster/more efficient cpu
4. Bluer-Ray option

1. Maybe
2. Obviously
3. You can't really get more efficient than Apple's current standard
4. 1-upping everyone else? "New from Apple, it's BLUER-RAY!"

We won't see Blu-ray.

hyteckit

Aug 21, 2008, 06:00 AM

Waiting for a new redesigned MacBook Pro in Sept.

Can't wait.

Umbongo

Aug 21, 2008, 06:06 AM

Core(s), Cores(s) and, more Core(s). The madness will never end. For the manufactures its a means to an end to sell you they technology even if it or will not benefit you in any way or form.

For the consumer they are either blinded by the marketing hype and jump on anything with multiples of or they conservatively sit on the side-lines watching the madness unravel.

It has already been predicted that the number of core(s) will reach and hit a wall, however the manufactures are still heading in that direction full speed ahead without trying to improve other key areas.

When will Crystal and Diamond based CPU be introduced, that will not only remove the GHz barriers and other limitations. This all seems like stale news to me the talk of smaller and multiple cpu. Wake me up when some great breakthrough is obtained. ::Yawn:: :rolleyes:

What key areas are they not improving on? Nehalem improves speed, core count, power management, bandwidth, improved and expanded instruction set and other things like the Radix-16 divider that can really improve scientific computing. These things will be improved upon generation after generation and Larabee is just the start of specialized cores. If the only thing that would interest you is a complete change in processor technology then good luck to you.

As for hitting a wall core wise, we are a long way off that yet.

When things like the Pervasive Parallelism Laboratory at Stanford, the Universal Parallel Computing Research Centers at Berkeley and the University of Illinois and and even Apple's Snow Leopard then mtulicore will come in to it's own. Those issues are likely to be solved long before we crystal or diamond replace silicon in consumer processors.

diamond.g

Aug 21, 2008, 07:19 AM

Desktops haven't caught up with servers in performance, so laptops won't catch up with desktops.Pretty Sure the MacPro and the xServe are the same in performance.

These things will be improved upon generation after generation and Larabee is just the start of specialized cores.
Cell say Hi!

Fidgetyrat

Aug 21, 2008, 07:37 AM

It all sounds nice a quad core proc.. But if it drains the battery a fast as it does my 2.6Ghz MBP than no thanks.

I'd rather have the quad-core and carry an extra battery. This is a Pro machine, not a Macbook air. I would be happy with 2 hours. Besides, its not like it is going to run all 4 cores at full capacity 24/7, it will be smart about powering down unnecessary components. I bet battery life, if anything, will only suffer a tiny bit under load.

DoFoT9

Aug 21, 2008, 07:52 AM

I'd rather have the quad-core and carry an extra battery. This is a Pro machine, not a Macbook air. I would be happy with 2 hours. Besides, its not like it is going to run all 4 cores at full capacity 24/7, it will be smart about powering down unnecessary components. I bet battery life, if anything, will only suffer a tiny bit under load.

it has the new shut down core thing going for it so hopefully if your just running word and other small things it wont use that much power.

they should give an option to turn off cores as you please.

oh: if you have 1 core running at 100%, compared to 4 cores running at 25% each it is going to use MUCH less power. so you never know it might have a lot more battery life with low processing things!!

137489

Aug 21, 2008, 07:54 AM

Give me a call when you can buy an 8 core Xeon Macbook Pro with 32gb RAM.

People, I am talking laptop vs desktop - not laptop vs servers. And besides a mac pro is just way overkill, unless you are running it as a server or doing massive video production (which hogs CPU and memory while rendering) as in running a studio. Would I love a mac pro, yes - but it is way over kill for my needs. I would love a lexus or cadillac - but for needs my Hyundai Elantra does just fine. I won't bring my wife's car into the picture - Honda Fits may be inexpensive, but they are snappy and versitle.

For most persons a macbook or macbook pro has enough power to do everything an imac can. A mini - well a baseline has a lower CPU but with the way OSX operates I have yet to have any complaints out of it. But my macbook is faster. And besides we are talking apple technology.

If we were talking about Windows PC's. Well, then it is up in the air. really. Most lower end PC laptops stink and you can barely run 2 apps without the thing coming to a crawl. the mid to higher end laptop PC's will get you some good performance. Desktop PC's are the same way. Lower end desktops are actually worse than a higher end laptop in performance.

I know, I had been using PC's since the 1980's. the first computer I was introduced to in school was an Apple IIe and it blew away the then IBM compatible Zeniths we were using (graphics and apps - anyone remember visicalc for spreadsheets) or the trash 80's by radio shack. I even wanted an apple back then.

But along came commodore 64, and the whole MS windows explosion. You could not find an apple computer anywhere and anyone who had one complained they were slow and the apps were lacking. I know someone who has been using Apple for the last 10-12 years (maybe more). he said before OSX, Apples were just pathetic. Now, they are the best computer you can buy.

Now in 2008, Apple makes it so that I do not need a desktop. Personally, I think the imac/mini of a desktop. to me the mac pro is a low end server or a way over the top tower needed to run studios.

I guess 28 yrs of dealing with Windows/PC technologies has warped my mind (I started playing with computers when I was 12). Don't worry a year or so dealing with Apple and my mind will be strait again. Atleast I will never see another BSOD just from plugging in a drive or a USB peripheral.

DoFoT9

Aug 21, 2008, 08:35 AM

..a lot of stuff up here..

I guess 28 yrs of dealing with Windows/PC technologies has warped my mind (I started playing with computers when I was 12). Don't worry a year or so dealing with Apple and my mind will be strait again. Atleast I will never see another BSOD just from plugging in a drive or a USB peripheral.

my lacie USB HD sometimes GraySOD's my computer when i plug it in.. so i commonly have to put up with it!!

JayMan8081

Aug 21, 2008, 09:19 AM

With four cores going at full speed I can't imagine the heat that would be generated by one of these laptops. People complained about the heat dissipation issues with a dual-core laptop!

electronboy

Aug 21, 2008, 09:44 AM

The new features are welcome and exciting, but I fail to see how deactivating unused cores could be considered Turbo Mode. :confused:

Maybe they could re-purpose the SpeedStep moniker. Come up with something else. I get that it extends battery life, but Turbo Mode does not apply there either.

diamond.g

Aug 21, 2008, 10:00 AM

With four cores going at full speed I can't imagine the heat that would be generated by one of these laptops. People complained about the heat dissipation issues with a dual-core laptop!

It may force Apple to make the notebooks a little thicker... That is most of the problem (well that and the howl that is generated under full load).

iMacmatician

Aug 21, 2008, 10:19 AM

3. You can't really get more efficient than Apple's current standardI suppose the only realistic way to do so is to use the 25 W CPUs at 2.4/2.53 GHz, increasing energy efficiency.

Pretty Sure the MacPro and the xServe are the same in performance.The Mac Pro is a workstation. And is the Mac Pro the same in performance as an MP server?

And besides a mac pro is just way overkill, unless you are running it as a server or doing massive video production (which hogs CPU and memory while rendering) as in running a studio.
...
For most persons a macbook or macbook pro has enough power to do everything an imac can.Overkill or not, it still is and still will be more powerful than notebooks.

If I was going to choose between an iMac and a MacBook (or MacBook Pro) for using as a desktop, which one would I choose?

Lower end desktops are actually worse than a higher end laptop in performance.Obviously, given that the notebook costs so much more. Performance per $ matters too.

to me the mac pro is a low end server or a way over the top tower needed to run studios.It's a workstation.

With four cores going at full speed I can't imagine the heat that would be generated by one of these laptops. People complained about the heat dissipation issues with a dual-core laptop!People seem to have the assumption that more cores automatically means more heat. This is not always true. The 2.27 GHz Q9100 is supposedly 35 W, the same TDP as the regular 35 W dual-cores Apple is using in the MacBook and MacBook Pro.

The new features are welcome and exciting, but I fail to see how deactivating unused cores could be considered Turbo Mode. :confused:The remaining cores are overclocked to increase single-thread performance.

CWallace

Aug 21, 2008, 10:42 AM

The Mac Pro is a workstation. And is the Mac Pro the same in performance as an MP server?

It uses the same CPUs and systemboard chipset, so they should be pretty close.

If I was going to choose between an iMac and a MacBook (or MacBook Pro) for using as a desktop, which one would I choose?

Having owned a 2.4GHz Al iMac and a 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, I can say that for most general tasks, they're effectively equivalent (with the iMac having a bit better HDD response).

diamond.g

Aug 21, 2008, 10:46 AM

The Mac Pro is a workstation. And is the Mac Pro the same in performance as an MP server?

Since the Mac Pro and xServe share the same chipset and CPUs, yes I do. xServe is DP (well dual socket) not MP (multi socket). Just like the Mac Pro.

Honestly the Macbook Pro compares quite favorably to the iMac. It will continue to do so until the iMac either stops using mobile chips or it uses C2Q while the MBP can't/doesn't.

iMacmatician

Aug 21, 2008, 11:47 AM

Having owned a 2.4GHz Al iMac and a 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, I can say that for most general tasks, they're effectively equivalent (with the iMac having a bit better HDD response).Ah, but one of them is much more expensive. ;)

So they're not really "equivalent."

Plus, the iMac has a bigger display, faster CPU, better GPU, faster RAM, and a bigger HDD than the MacBook Pro. Tell me when those advantages will be gone.

hiimamac

Aug 21, 2008, 12:12 PM

I have approval at my job to order a MBP to replace my Dell work laptop. I've delayed for a month hoping to see some definitive news about the upcoming laptop upgrades from Apple.

I guess either way I'll be happy with the Apple.

Since I got my last gen MBP for $1500 or so, refresh, plus 10% discount, was a $2500 256 MB GPU, 160 HD, Glossy, and works fine, how much should I settle for it? 6 Months old and loaded with legit software (which I know I am supposed to take off but am a beta tester, so maybe I don't). LOL.

Anyway, know some people at Apple that A) Can get me the newest PINCH models when they go on refresh (30% or so) or use their personal 25% off and get the latest and greatest?

The thing is, for me, I like the laptop but want the power of an 8 core desktop and the POWER on a LAPTOP too (music) but good battery life which IMHO are the MAC BOOKS as they only have to drive a 13" screen.

Now, give me a 12" MBP with 4 Cores and we're talking 6-7 hours baby.

:-)

hiimamac

Aug 21, 2008, 12:21 PM

It uses the same CPUs and systemboard chipset, so they should be pretty close.

Having owned a 2.4GHz Al iMac and a 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, I can say that for most general tasks, they're effectively equivalent (with the iMac having a bit better HDD response).

One must be careful here: It has been well documented, iMAC does not use industry standard FIREWIRE (Texas Instruments) but a cheaper firewire chipset which has caused some problems with PRO audio and VIDEO firewire devices.

Then, if you read between the lines, the iMAC is all glossy and looks great, in fact I had a MBP Matte then Glossy and love them booth, and in a dark studio, they look the same, that said, in years past, iMacs had MATTE screens which meant PRO's in graphics would/could use them, but not in it's current incarnation as this causes quite a bit of color repair so it appears that while apple continues to up the speeds and power, they get you some how, point, all macbooks used to bench mark starting at 71% and going all the way to 171% in GPU benchmarks (could not play a game but could run motion), but now its crippled and comes in a lowly paltry 71% again.

So why?

If the rumours are true, lets hope all MACS have great graphics and what seperates MB from MBP are 4 cores. And perhaps 4 cores in iMac and 16 in the Mac Pro.

Reduce the price points and now we're at the point where everyone FLOCKS to Apple as said in the financial comments last month.
:apple::apple:

theBB

Aug 21, 2008, 12:34 PM

The magnetic strip vs. pin number doesn't make that much difference. You just collect information about a victim (it is really a good idea to buy a cheap shredder and destroy any papers with your name on before you throw them away) ...
Sometimes I think, why bother? Hackers get all the info they need about millions of people at once by hacking into big corporate systems, who are collecting information about you without your knowledge. I am not sure how much of a factor is "dumpster diving" in ID theft. All this "shredding" advice sounds like an attempt to blame the victim or avoid responsibility by the companies who get hacked.

Wolfpup

Aug 21, 2008, 01:23 PM

Having owned a 2.4GHz Al iMac and a 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, I can say that for most general tasks, they're effectively equivalent (with the iMac having a bit better HDD response).

For most people for most things you wouldn't technically need even that much power-but the iMac isn't representative of desktops. It's using mobile parts, so it's not unsurprising that it compares with...laptops :)

AIXOS

Aug 21, 2008, 03:18 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Nehalem won't do anything for gaming (it's Intel's answer to the server market and AMD's domination).

For more info, see here: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480

It depends on how new the game is and how well optimized it is for multi-core systems (alot of newer games have seen substantial improvements in this). The integrated memory controller improves on how well performance is scaled as more CPUs and cores are added. Servers will see the greatest improvement because they typically employ the greatest number of CPUs/cores but any multicore system will see considerable improvements.

Thats not to say that improvements stem only from better scalability; having an integrated controller also significantly decreases latency from the memory and this will improve the performance of any application. Furthermore Nehalem has new memory and cache architectures that are quite improved over Penryn, as you can see from this link (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=5). Overall, memory bandwidth was nearly doubled, memory latency was decreased by nearly 30%, and cache latencies were nearly halved. Furthermore you've got hyperthreading which will most likely improve the performance of any multithreaded app or multitasking task (like this (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=4)).

So if you look at some preliminary benchmarks like the ones found here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=7), you'll find that improvements in performance are quite substantial across the board (somewhere around a 20%-40+% boost in clock-to-clock performance). As the link indicates, a 2.66 GHz Nehalem is already faster than the fastest 3.2 GHz Penryn on the market today. Nevermind that it will most likely easily scale higher than the fastest Penryn due to improvements in manufacturing process. Heck Intel is barely pushing the Penryns which can easily clock to 4 GHz on air due to a lack of competition from AMD.

Cubytus

Aug 22, 2008, 09:13 AM

Well, not so good news for me since I may buy a new MacBook when they come out in october, and won't have the money any time soon to replace it with an even more pwerful one.

That's evolution :)

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 09:30 AM

Well, not so good news for me since I may buy a new MacBook when they come out in october, and won't have the money any time soon to replace it with an even more pwerful one.

That's evolution :)

It's sounding like Nehalam won't hit notebooks until H1 next year at the earliest, and maybe not until H2 (although I guess it's hitting high end desktop stuff late this year).

Tman1523

Aug 22, 2008, 10:18 AM

It's sounding like Nehalam won't hit notebooks until H1 next year at the earliest, and maybe not until H2 (although I guess it's hitting high end desktop stuff late this year).

DO I BUY A MAC BOOK PRO NOW IN THE MID OF SEPT OR NO ALSO I HEARD THAT IN CANADA VPS FROM MAC ARE HOLDING ON THEIR childrens purchase until mid sept as they will expect macbook updates not pro tho
Thoughts??

CWallace

Aug 22, 2008, 10:24 AM

Supposedly the MacBook Pro is being updated within 60 days.

However, supposedly it is also going to a new chipset platform (nVidia). While this will likely bring more performance, it could also bring more problems (since the current MBP platform has had plenty of time to get the bugs worked out).

I'm adventurous by nature, so I'd have waited if I could (I could not, so I bought an MBP in June). But if you are more cautious, it may be safer to order now and take advantage of the extra promotions.

Tman1523

Aug 22, 2008, 10:30 AM

my issue is the (667MHz) DDR2 memory
they are so out of date on this one and i heard the 512 Graphics card had issues if this is not that out of date and all tech in the current MBP is dated to work for 5 + yrs, then do i purchase i want snow leopard and if i can't upgrade it in my macbookpro if i bought today then its not worth it to me i don't buy out of date tech....or should i with a mac i;'m new

AidenShaw

Aug 22, 2008, 10:33 AM

Furthermore you've got hyperthreading which will most likely improve the performance of any multithreaded app or multitasking task (like this (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=4)).

Hyperthreading can easily hurt performance if:

You have fewer computatble threads than logical cores
*and* the OS scheduler is not HT-aware

Consider the trivial case of two computable threads.

If they are scheduled on logical cores that are on different physical cores, both will run at full speed - the job will complete 2X faster than a single core system.

If they are scheduled on logical cores that are on the same physical core, they'll only get the HT boost - it will take 1.2 to 1.4 times faster than a single core system.

iMacmatician

Aug 22, 2008, 10:42 AM

It's sounding like Nehalam won't hit notebooks until H1 next year at the earliest, and maybe not until H2 (although I guess it's hitting high end desktop stuff late this year).High-end desktop and DP server variants are being released in Q4 2008.

Midrange and value desktop, and all notebook variants are supposedly to be released in Q3 2009.

Hyperthreading can easily hurt performance if:OUCH.

I guess OS X (if it's not already) needs to be HT-aware for Nehalem.

Tman1523

Aug 22, 2008, 11:25 AM

So is the macbook pro really being updated in 60 days? cause i can wait then but not Q3 2009, **** mac in that case

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 11:41 AM

DO I BUY A MAC BOOK PRO NOW IN THE MID OF SEPT OR NO ALSO I HEARD THAT IN CANADA VPS FROM MAC ARE HOLDING ON THEIR childrens purchase until mid sept as they will expect macbook updates not pro tho
Thoughts??

Unless you absolutely need it now, wait. Apple (and Dell, bizarrely) are way behind on updating their notebooks. It's virtually guaranteed we'll see at least minor bumps within the next month or two.

Supposedly the MacBook Pro is being updated within 60 days.

However, supposedly it is also going to a new chipset platform (nVidia). While this will likely bring more performance, it could also bring more problems (since the current MBP platform has had plenty of time to get the bugs worked out).

Where is that Nvidia chipset rumor from? I'd be really surprised if they did that. Don't really see the point. Apple's not going to use SLI, and Nvidia actually lets people do SLI on an Intel chipset in notebooks (Dell has a system that does this, and there are a handful of others).

I could maybe see for the Macbook, just so they could get better integrated video.

my issue is the (667MHz) DDR2 memory
they are so out of date on this one

No, they're not. It's only with Intel's new chipset that was just launched that notebooks can support DDR3 and somewhat faster clocked RAM (I think some systems with the new chipset have DDR3 running at 1066MHz, though I may be off on the exact numbers). At any rate, until now, 667MHz RAM was state of the art for notebooks.

and i heard the 512 Graphics card had issues if this is not that out of date and all tech in the current MBP is dated to work for 5 + yrs, then do i purchase

I'm not sure what "dated to work for 5 +" years means. Do you mean will it physically last 5 years? Notebooks are less reliable than desktops, industry wide. There's definitely no guarantee any hardware is going to last 5 years. Get Applecare with it though, so at least you'll be set for 3 years.

If you mean "will I be able to run the programs I want to for 5 years", then that depends entirely on what programs you're going to try to run. 5 years from now I'm sure the current Macbook Pro will still be fine for browsing the web and basics like that. I'll be very very slow by future standards for other things, and quite possible unusable for gaming and the like.

i want snow leopard and if i can't upgrade it in my macbookpro if i bought today then its not worth it to me i don't buy out of date tech....or should i with a mac i;'m new

There's no question ANY recent Apple hardware is going to run 10.6. Apple does cut off older hardware, but much, MUCH older than products they're currently selling! I'd be shocked if it won't run at least the next couple of OS revisions, minimum.

Hyperthreading can easily hurt performance if:

You have fewer computatble threads than logical cores
*and* the OS scheduler is not HT-aware

Consider the trivial case of two computable threads.

If they are scheduled on logical cores that are on different physical cores, both will run at full speed - the job will complete 2X faster than a single core system.

If they are scheduled on logical cores that are on the same physical core, they'll only get the HT boost - it will take 1.2 to 1.4 times faster than a single core system.

That's a good point, and I'm not really sure how that's handled. Until i7, there have only been a very few systems in existence that have both multiple cores AND hyperthreading (and not a single Mac falls into that category). Basically just a couple of Extreme Edition Pentium 4/Ds.

I guess the OS can "know" about the Hyperthreading, and then schedule stuff more correctly? Because otherwise, yeah, it thinks it has 8 CPUs or whatever, so how would it know that when it puts 2 threads on 2 CPUs, it's really schedulling them on the SAME CPU and leaving another CPU unused, or whatever. Interesting problem.

Regarding Hyperthreading (ie SMT, if I'm remembering right); at first it was really badmouthed as a gimick. Part of that I think is that Intel's CPUs are already really efficient, so adding Hyperthreading dosen't necessarily do as much as it could on a really poor CPU design (like the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 CPUs). Even the Pentium 4 looks like a masterful work of art compared with those things. I thought it was a gimick too...

...but I've had a Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading for 4 years now, and have found it increasingly more useful. It really does help in situations where a single process is running at 100% at a highish priority-either because it's supposed to be, or because it's gone out of control. The system gets unresponsive on a single CPU, no Hyperthreading system, but keeps running okay with Hyperthreading, almost like it's got two CPUs. It also really does speed up some multithreaded programs or instances where I can run two processes, etc.

The thing is, Core 2 is vastly more efficient than even the Pentium 4 was, and so I'm wondering how it'll benefit that design. And yeah, without the OS's scheduler knowing about Hyperthreading, you could run into some issues where it's not being as efficient as it could be (although that'll happen even when the OS does know about Hyperthreading).

Also, another thing I've never really understood is how two processes interact that aren't using the same parts of the CPU. Like if one process is using almost entirely the integer units, then the CPU monitor will report that the CPU is running at 100%, yet really it has a ton of unused potential for something that needs mostly floating point or SIMD, etc.

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 11:47 AM

So is the macbook pro really being updated in 60 days? cause i can wait then but not Q3 2009, **** mac in that case

Probably, since Apple (and Dell) are among the last to bump their notebooks up to Intel's new chipset. It would be very surprising if they havne't updated them within two months.

There's absolutely 100% certainty that they'll be updated before a year from now! Something would have to be VERY wrong at Apple if that happened! (And as we know, there's not-Apple's been doing fantastically.)

Tman1523

Aug 22, 2008, 11:48 AM

[QUOTE=Wolfpup;6089286]Unless you absolutely need it now, wait. Apple (and Dell, bizarrely) are way behind on updating their notebooks. It's virtually guaranteed we'll see at least minor bumps within the next month or two.

Where is that Nvidia chipset rumor from? I'd be really surprised if they did that. Don't really see the point. Apple's not going to use SLI, and Nvidia actually lets people do SLI on an Intel chipset in notebooks (Dell has a system that does this, and there are a handful of others).

I could maybe see for the Macbook, just so they could get better integrated video.

No, they're not. It's only with Intel's new chipset that was just launched that notebooks can support DDR3 and somewhat faster clocked RAM (I think some systems with the new chipset have DDR3 running at 1066MHz, though I may be off on the exact numbers). At any rate, until now, 667MHz RAM was state of the art for notebooks.

I'm not sure what "dated to work for 5 +" years means. Do you mean will it physically last 5 years? Notebooks are less reliable than desktops, industry wide. There's definitely no guarantee any hardware is going to last 5 years. Get Applecare with it though, so at least you'll be set for 3 years.

If you mean "will I be able to run the programs I want to for 5 years", then that depends entirely on what programs you're going to try to run. 5 years from now I'm sure the current Macbook Pro will still be fine for browsing the web and basics like that. I'll be very very slow by future standards for other things, and quite possible unusable for gaming and the like.

There's no question ANY recent Apple hardware is going to run 10.6. Apple does cut off older hardware, but much, MUCH older than products they're currently selling! I'd be shocked if it won't run at least the next couple of OS revisions, minimum.

thank you well explained i'm still not sure tho if i will purchase an almost 3k laptop to at least have 2.6 and yes lenova seems to be the most up to date in terms of tech. They equip ddr3, 1066MHz and 256 graphics card with 2.8 or so chip set.

goinskiing

Aug 22, 2008, 12:07 PM

:mad:
But the MBP's will be refreshed for sure in less the n90 days or not ???
This answer determines when i will purchase one. I really hate this out of date chip it came out in feb 08 its way overdue ???????HELP

I, personally, think there will be a MBP revision sometime soon. If you search the forums, you will find that this has been discussed in nauseaum (sp?) over the last 3 months.

You'll also find that they may not be using the intel chipset (not cpu). Again, it's al speculation.

I would be quite surprised to not see a MB/MBP revision by the end of the year.

The current Penryn cpus I feel are quite excellent and can do most anything you throw at it.

diamond.g

Aug 22, 2008, 12:21 PM

Regarding Hyperthreading (ie SMT, if I'm remembering right); at first it was really badmouthed as a gimick. Part of that I think is that Intel's CPUs are already really efficient, so adding Hyperthreading dosen't necessarily do as much as it could on a really poor CPU design (like the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 CPUs). Even the Pentium 4 looks like a masterful work of art compared with those things. I thought it was a gimick too...

...but I've had a Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading for 4 years now, and have found it increasingly more useful. It really does help in situations where a single process is running at 100% at a highish priority-either because it's supposed to be, or because it's gone out of control. The system gets unresponsive on a single CPU, no Hyperthreading system, but keeps running okay with Hyperthreading, almost like it's got two CPUs. It also really does speed up some multithreaded programs or instances where I can run two processes, etc.

Actually the P4 hyperthreading isn't like i7's SMT (which Intel, for whatever reason also calls hyperthreading). According to wiki it caused too much cache thrashing (I also assume poisoning). So they dropped it for Core/Core 2. I also think it had something to do with only having one execution unit, where I am pretty sure i7 is supposed to have two.

Oh, the XeCPU and Cell aren't poorly designed. Intel's (P4 at least) was...

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 12:25 PM

Umm...the language...

**** mac like i said they are screwing you all and your blind by it I really am not turned on at all with the production and scerecy this corporation like to promote, REDICULAS.

No one here isn't aware of what the rest of the industry is doing. This is a pretty minor bump, and companies are coming out with it at different times. Apple and Dell happen to be among the slowest to get the update out there this time.

:mad:
But the MBP's will be refreshed for sure in less the n90 days or not ???
This answer determines when i will purchase one.

Almost certainly. Apple's due for their next update anyway, and this chipset bump coincides nicely with that.

I really hate this out of date chip it came out in feb 08 its way overdue ???????HELP

I think you're confused by what this more recent update was. Early this year Intel released the second version of their Core 2 CPU (the Penryn family of CPUs). In July they released a new *chipset*. The CPU is still the same. The current Macbook Pros have Penryn CPUs, the new ones have Penryn CPUs-that's the newest CPU.

The only real difference is with this new chipset, the front side bus will be slightly faster. In practice you won't see a performance difference. There may be other improvements to the new systems-like a better GPU, or a new case design. But those are completely unrelated to Intel's new chipset.

Again, Intel's new CPU has been in the Macbook Pro since it launched early this year-this July update is *VERY* minor.

Umbongo

Aug 22, 2008, 12:34 PM

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 12:41 PM

Actually the P4 hyperthreading isn't like i7's SMT (which Intel, for whatever reason also calls hyperthreading). According to wiki it caused too much cache thrashing (I also assume poisoning). So they dropped it for Core/Core 2. I also think it had something to do with only having one execution unit, where I am pretty sure i7 is supposed to have two.

The Pentium 4 design had 3 (more or less) integer units. Conroe/Penryn have I guess 4 (I thought originally I read it was 5, but I don't think that's right).

Oh, the XeCPU and Cell aren't poorly designed. Intel's (P4 at least) was...

That's not true. Cell and Xenon are incredibly primitive, and lack all kinds of features that have been standard on RISK chips for over 15 years, and on x86 chips since the Pentium Pro back in 1995. They're fine for certain types of code (stuff that's really predictable, like media decoding), but terrible for other types of code. The various flavors of the Pentium 4 had obvious issues compared with their Pentium Pro based predecessors, but those game system CPUs have those same issues even worse. At WORST a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed is going to more or less equal a single core from one of those CPUs, but for general purpose code (like running a web browser...or game logic) a Pentium 4 is going to destroy those.

That's the trade off they made with those for whatever reason (and I've yet to hear a game developer say they like those thing's designs). Xenon for example has 3 cores that take up about the same amount of space as a single Prescott CPU. By ditching a ton of modern features, they're able to fit in slightly more execution hardware (and divide it among three separate CPUs), but it's much harder to actually keep that execution hardware fed.

Actually Intel's Atom (ie sort of an advanced Pentium 1 design) is probably the most similar to those two game system CPUs.

iMacmatician

Aug 22, 2008, 01:03 PM

Where is that Nvidia chipset rumor from? I'd be really surprised if they did that. Don't really see the point. Apple's not going to use SLI, and Nvidia actually lets people do SLI on an Intel chipset in notebooks (Dell has a system that does this, and there are a handful of others).There was an AppleInsider rumor (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=4413) about the next Macs using a chipset other than Montevina. The NVIDIA chipset stuff is all speculation, but pretty intelligent speculation at that.

:mad:
But the MBP's will be refreshed for sure in less the n90 days or not ???
This answer determines when i will purchase one. I really hate this out of date chip it came out in feb 08 its way overdue ???????HELPI wouldn't call it way overdue…

Again, Intel's new CPU has been in the Macbook Pro since it launched early this year-this July update is *VERY* minor.CPU-wise it is. Other-wise it isn't (case redesign, glass trackpad).

Hyperthreading also allows them to compete with Sun in the how many threads can we offer in one box competition.Too bad they scrapped 8-node, 32-core, 128-thread Keifer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Keifer) and replaced it with 6/8-core 12/16-thread Sandy Bridge.

You just have to remember that the very ideology of Nehalem is for there to be a wide array of functionality that they can use to build different processors for different tasks. Not every feature is suited to the home user.If Nehalem is so scalable, then there should be variants suitable for the home user.

Cell and Xenon are incredibly primitive, and lack all kinds of features that have been standard on RISK chips for over 15 years, and on x86 chips since the Pentium Pro back in 1995. They're fine for certain types of code (stuff that's really predictable, like media decoding), but terrible for other types of code. The various flavors of the Pentium 4 had obvious issues compared with their Pentium Pro based predecessors, but those game system CPUs have those same issues even worse. At WORST a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed is going to more or less equal a single core from one of those CPUs, but for general purpose code (like running a web browser...or game logic) a Pentium 4 is going to destroy those.

That's the trade off they made with those for whatever reason (and I've yet to hear a game developer say they like those thing's designs). Xenon for example has 3 cores that take up about the same amount of space as a single Prescott CPU. By ditching a ton of modern features, they're able to fit in slightly more execution hardware (and divide it among three separate CPUs), but it's much harder to actually keep that execution hardware fed.

Actually Intel's Atom (ie sort of an advanced Pentium 1 design) is probably the most similar to those two game system CPUs.Larrabee's cores are also Pentium variants with a 512-bit vector unit slapped on them. This allows Intel to put 32 cores on a single die.

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 01:19 PM

Hyperthreading also allows them to compete with Sun in the how many threads can we offer in one box competition.

You just have to remember that the very ideology of Nehalem is for there to be a wide array of functionality that they can use to build different processors for different tasks. Not every feature is suited to the home user.

I can't wait for the 8 core CPUs to start hitting! I'm not sure if it's exactly out or not, but Intel's got a six core Penryn that shockingly is rated for about 65 watts if I'm remembering right. Basically they can do TWELVE CPUs now all within the same power budget of my single Prescott (and each of those CPUs is considerably more powerful!) And that's just within a FOUR YEAR period. Just ridiculous!

Tman1523

Aug 22, 2008, 01:26 PM

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 01:47 PM

i'm looking for speed and productivity in my MBP so 250GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive OR optional 200GB 7200
please help i'm gunning for the 256 Graphics and 2.4 with 7200 OR 512 graphics 2.6 mhz 7200

I'll help if you let us know what you plan on doing with the system. The extra video RAM will help for games, but won't help just for general desktop usage (browsing the web, watching movies, etc.).

If you're comparing the three CPUs offered in the current Macbook Pro, I would *NOT* get the 2.6Ghz one. That speed grade is a rip off. Intel charges a ton more for it for an unnoticeable speed gain. The 2.5Ghz one isn't quite such a rip off since it also has double the L2 cache over the 2.4GHz one, but it's still not really worth the prices that get charged for it.

I'm personally planning on putting in Seagate's largest 7200RPM drive when I get my notebook. I've used a Macbook Pro a year ago with a stock 5400RPM drive though and it seemed fast, so if you'd like the slightly larger drive space a 5400RPM drive gives you you can't go wrong that way either.

diamond.g

Aug 22, 2008, 01:52 PM

That's not true. Cell and Xenon are incredibly primitive, and lack all kinds of features that have been standard on RISK chips for over 15 years, and on x86 chips since the Pentium Pro back in 1995. They're fine for certain types of code (stuff that's really predictable, like media decoding), but terrible for other types of code. The various flavors of the Pentium 4 had obvious issues compared with their Pentium Pro based predecessors, but those game system CPUs have those same issues even worse. At WORST a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed is going to more or less equal a single core from one of those CPUs, but for general purpose code (like running a web browser...or game logic) a Pentium 4 is going to destroy those.

Beyond 3D (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=36058&highlight=cell+pentium) has a forum post on Cell. It is a bit old, but it shows that software that isn't optimized, and that runs on only the PPE will end up running slower than software that is optimized and can take advantage of the SPEs. I still think Apple should have moved to using Cell. Sure all the code would have to be rewritten, but they would get a chip no one else could use (well other than STI). The chip would be stupid fast at all math related calculations. And from my searching (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47022&highlight=cell+wattage) it would look like you can fit more Cells in a Mac than you could x86 chips for a given TDP. Note that 1 PS3 (8 cores) is faster at F@Home than 1 MacPro (8 cores).

EDIT: In the end I hope Apple uses Nehalem. I also wish they would move to the desktop chips and chipset for the iMac and Mac Mini. They can continue using the workstation dual socket chipset for the Mac Pro. I also hope they move the xServe to the 4 way socket chipset.

digitalbiker

Aug 22, 2008, 02:05 PM

The only real difference is with this new chipset, the front side bus will be slightly faster. In practice you won't see a performance difference. There may be other improvements to the new systems-like a better GPU, or a new case design. But those are completely unrelated to Intel's new chipset.

Again, Intel's new CPU has been in the Macbook Pro since it launched early this year-this July update is *VERY* minor.

I think you are really understating the Montevina upgrade that hopefully will be available in the new MBP.

1st it has a much faster FSB which you mentioned.
2nd it has a much faster IGPU for big boost to MB & MBA.
3rd it supports faster memory.
4th it supports flash NAND Robson2 which should allow very fast reboots if implemented.
5th it supports improved Wi-fi.
6th it supports much better power management system.
7th it supports gigabit ethernet on the standard board.
8th it has a much smaller physical size.
9th it supports GPU switching, to save power using the lower power IGPU for normal operation and switches to discrete GPU card (if attached) for graphics intensive operations.
10th memory management is much improved for multi-core processing.
11th it supports HDMI output as well as DVI and VGA.

All in all, it is a great update and the latest laptops from Sony and Lenova are already benefiting from it greatly in terms of form factor, power options, speed, and battery life.

The Nehalem and Capella updates will supposedly be an even greater differential in performance and power management but the Montevina release is still a welcome update.

CWallace

Aug 22, 2008, 02:05 PM

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 03:49 PM

I still think Apple should have moved to using Cell. Sure all the code would have to be rewritten, but they would get a chip no one else could use (well other than STI). The chip would be stupid fast at all math related calculations. And from my searching (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47022&highlight=cell+wattage) it would look like you can fit more Cells in a Mac than you could x86 chips for a given TDP. Note that 1 PS3 (8 cores) is faster at F@Home than 1 MacPro (8 cores).

It's much more limited though. Apple needs a strong general purpose CPU as much as anyone. Cell isn't well suited to everything. It's only faster at some things because it's giving up a ton of features just to cram more physical execution units in the same space. As a video encode/decode coprocessor it might be handy, but not as a general CPU (and even in that case it's not really useful since that type of work should be getting moved to GPUs or Larrabee type CPUs). Cell can't replace a modern CPU design for Folding either. It's kind of halfway in between a GPU and a CPU. It's a bit more flexible than the former, but less than the latter, and can't run every type of work they need done at a reasonable speed.

Besides that, Apple wouldn't have anything like the marketshare gains they've gotten if they hadn't switched to x86. They'd also still be at the mercy of companies that don't really care about making high end CPUs.

Actually the rumors are IBM basically *DID* offer them something along the lines of Xenon/Cell, and Apple turned them down. For multiple reasons (both performance and compatibility) I'm thrilled they did. I really doubt they'd be in the same position they are today if they hadn't.

I think you are really understating the Montevina upgrade that hopefully will be available in the new MBP.

1st it has a much faster FSB which you mentioned.

Which dosen't actually translate to any kind of huge performance increase. I haven't seen numbers specifically, but I've read it's a smaller bump than similar increases on the Netburst archetecture (which wouldn't surprise me), and THAT wasn't a huge difference-basically worth one speed grade.

2nd it has a much faster IGPU for big boost to MB & MBA.

True, but irrelevant for anyone who needs real graphics.

3rd it supports faster memory.

Which dosen't translate to vastly faster performance either, and mostly isn't even getting used yet.

4th it supports flash NAND Robson2 which should allow very fast reboots if implemented.

Which may not get used at all. The first generation of that turned out to be essentially useless, although it's a nifty idea, I guess. It's even more useless though as everything's transitioned to 64-bit support anyway, and RAM's dirt cheap.

5th it supports improved Wi-fi.

Some minor Intel wifi chipset bump, but Apple may not even use that, and it's nothing spectacular. Ditto for the power management-the CPU is actually revised and uses less power though, which is cool.

7th it supports gigabit ethernet on the standard board.

Gigabit Ethernet's been around for ages on standard machines.

8th it has a much smaller physical size.

No it dosen't.

11th it supports HDMI output as well as DVI and VGA.

Which has all been supported for years too.

All in all, it is a great update

No, it really isn't. It's a chipset update, that's been taken and run with by the marketing department. It's an extremely modest update that's even less meaningful than the Penryn update we got earlier this year. Companies may be timing major system updates with it, but basically it's just another new chipset. The biggest change it brings is a fast FSB, which isn't really that big of a deal. The rest of it only affects low end systems.

Multiple rumors referenced here and in other sites claim Apple is transitioning their entire line, other then the Mac Pro, to nVidia. Since the Nehalem mobiles do not use Intel's QPI, nVidia can already offer a chipset for them when they become available, so Apple would not have to return to Intel one CPU generation later.

I subscribe to the Macrumors feeds and haven't seen anything about this. Have they given a reason why they'd be doing this? I like Nvidia as far as that goes, and I'm not necessarily against it-I'm sure Apple's drivers would be rock solid-but I don't understand why they'd do it, and why they'd do it *now* of all times.

I could see Apple wanting a certain class of GPU in every system to use as a coprocessor, but I don't know what that would have to do with a chipset, unless there's some kind of deal in place where Apple gets a big discount on one or the other by buying both, or something.

I'd *LOVE* if Apple would transition the Macbooks to something with a real GPU for example!

CWallace

Aug 22, 2008, 04:27 PM

I subscribe to the Macrumors feeds and haven't seen anything about this.

The rumor did first rise about a month ago - Apple to Adopt Alternative Chipsets for Next Laptops? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=532815) - and has started taking on a stronger tone as of late with a few folks claiming leaks from inside nVidia that this has happened and Apple will adopt the MCP79 mobile platform.

Have they given a reason why they'd be doing this?

The MCP79 is supposed to be a single-chip solution, as opposed to the multiple-chip solutions of current Intel offerings. So it would allow less complexity, lower costs, and lower power draw/heat production.

nVidia is also said to be offering multiple versions. So you could have the MacBook and MacMini with an integrated 8-series GPU and a MacBook Pro and iMac with a 9-series or even a Quadro professional GPU.

Wolfpup

Aug 22, 2008, 05:45 PM

The rumor did first rise about a month ago - Apple to Adopt Alternative Chipsets for Next Laptops? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=532815) - and has started taking on a stronger tone as of late with a few folks claiming leaks from inside nVidia that this has happened and Apple will adopt the MCP79 mobile platform.

The MCP79 is supposed to be a single-chip solution, as opposed to the multiple-chip solutions of current Intel offerings. So it would allow less complexity, lower costs, and lower power draw/heat production.

nVidia is also said to be offering multiple versions. So you could have the MacBook and MacMini with an integrated 8-series GPU and a MacBook Pro and iMac with a 9-series or even a Quadro professional GPU.

Thanks for the info. I guess having a single "chipset" chip instead of two could be handy. Still, I'm really surprised by it. Wonder what it means in terms of Apple/Intel relations if it's true. Intel's been seeming to give them preferential treatment since the beginning, so they've still had custom chips.

CWallace

Aug 22, 2008, 06:34 PM

Wonder what it means in terms of Apple/Intel relations if it's true. Intel's been seeming to give them preferential treatment since the beginning, so they've still had custom chips.

That is kind of what I have been wondering. If Apple just becomes another CPU buyer, will Intel...take care...of them with allocated or new product when other vendors are doing the whole Intel package (CPU, IGPU, Chipsets, Systemboard)?

digitalbiker

Aug 22, 2008, 07:06 PM

I True, but irrelevant for anyone who needs real graphics.
No, it is relevant for anyone wanting a MB or a MBA or a MBP with GPU switching.

I
Which may not get used at all. The first generation of that turned out to be essentially useless, although it's a nifty idea, I guess. It's even more useless though as everything's transitioned to 64-bit support anyway, and RAM's dirt cheap.

Not sure what your getting at as it will help speed things up dramatically for reboot.

Gigabit Ethernet's been around for ages on standard machines.
Not in Santa Rosa. It was always an add on by Apple

No it dosen't.

Yes, it is smaller. Montevina chipset system boards are the same physical size as the custom merom and chipset system board in MBA. Now Apple can use Montevina in MBA without custom modification from intel. It also allowed Sony to add more features and reduce weight in Vaio Z.

Which has all been supported for years too.
No HDMI output wasn't in SR. It is new with Montevina. Apple would have had to alter the standard SR chipset to offer in the past. Now it comes standard with Montevina. Using the stock Montevina chipset from intel, rather than modifying everything as Apple and others did for SR, reduces duplication of functions, wasted circuitry, and wasted space and lowers cost for Apple.

I realize that this may not be as good of a boost as Nehalem & Capella but it is still a decent update. Look at all the new model laptops that are being introduced as a result of the Montevina chipset and 2nd gen. penryn.

mjteix

Aug 22, 2008, 07:50 PM

It'sNo, it really isn't. It's a chipset update, that's been taken and run with by the marketing department. It's an extremely modest update that's even less meaningful than the Penryn update we got earlier this year. Companies may be timing major system updates with it, but basically it's just another new chipset. The biggest change it brings is a fast FSB, which isn't really that big of a deal. The rest of it only affects low end systems.

I think that you need to factor in all the updates of the chipset as well as the price cut/clock bump that Montevina brings:
- 2.10GHz/3MB cache/800FSB/35W vs 2.26GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/25W for $209 (nice clock bump on this one, and the TDP is much lower = better battery life )
- 2.40GHz/3MB cache/800FSB/35W vs 2.40GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/25W for $241 (not much improvement on this one, but the TDP is much lower = better battery life)
- 2.50GHz/6MB cache/800FSB vs 2.53GHz/6MB cache/1066FSB for $316 (small improvements on this one, but there's a 25W version for just $348)
- 2.60GHz/6MB cache/800FSB vs 2.80GHz/6MB cache/1066FSB for $530 (really nice clock bump on this one)
- 2.80GHz/6MB cache/800FSB vs 3.06GHz/6MB cache/1066FSB for $851 (again a really nice clock bump)

Especially on the MacBook and the MacBook Pro, Apple would be able to offer faster and/or more efficient computers for the same price using "montevina" cpus and chipsets.

For the iMac and the MBA, it will be using regular cpus and chipsets now vs. customs cpus and chipsets = either a nice speedbump and/or a price cut (depending on the parts chosen).
The iMac line-up could end like that later this year:
$1199 DC 2.53GHz/35W 20" iMac
$1499 DC 2.80GHz 20" iMac
$1799 DC 3.06GHz or QC 2.26GHz 24" iMac
$1999 QC 2.53GHz 24" iMac
Because it doesn't make sense to offer 2.40/2.53/2.80/3.06GHz models when you are already offering 2.40/2.66/2.80/3.06GHz models.

For the Mac mini, it would translate into HUGE improvements.
1.83GHz/2MB cache/667FSB&RAM/30W/GMA950 -› 2.26GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/800 or 1066 RAM/25W/X4500
2.00GHz/4MB cache/667FSB&RAM/30W/GMA950 -› 2.40GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/800 or 1066 RAM/25W/X4500

@digitalbiker:
The regular montevina chipset is not the same size as the chipset in the MBA. There are various versions of the montevina chipet:
PM45, regular size, dedicated graphics, 7W (MBP, iMac)
GM45, regular size, integrated graphics, 12W (MB, Mac mini)
GS45, small size (MBA like), integrated graphics, 7, 8 or 12W (depending on the mode: low-power, LP+533 GFX or high-performance)
GL40, regular size, integrated graphics, (crippled) low-cost chipset for celerons, 12W

iMacmatician

Aug 22, 2008, 08:34 PM

The regular montevina chipset is not the same size as the chipset in the MBA.It is smaller than before though. About 40% smaller is what I've heard.

mjteix

Aug 23, 2008, 05:45 PM

It is smaller than before though. About 40% smaller is what I've heard.

I dont think so.

GM45 MCH 34x34mm was 35x35mm for the GM965 (Santa Rosa) MCH
GS45 MCH 27x25mm
standard ICH9 31x31mm was already 31x31mm for ICH8 (Santa Rosa)
SFF ICH9 16x16mm

Intel's web site is a good source of information.
Since the very 1st leaks of information about montevina, there has been a lot of confusion about the size, the speed, the TDP of those chips. I guess hearsay and rumors are a lot more fun than datasheets.

Wolfpup

Aug 24, 2008, 01:42 AM

No, it is relevant for anyone wanting a MB or a MBA or a MBP with GPU switching.

I suppose, but that's been done prior to this update, and it's still not a big deal for people who just care about power.

Not sure what your getting at as it will help speed things up dramatically for reboot.

According to Intel? I'm not buying any of that this time. I wasn't even aware they were advertising that again. They made those same claims LAST update, and they ended up amounting to basically nothing. The technology was ignored.

Not in Santa Rosa. It was always an add on by Apple

But again, who cares? It's been on systems for the better part of a decade.

Yes, it is smaller. Montevina chipset system boards are the same physical size as the custom merom and chipset system board in MBA. Now Apple can use Montevina in MBA without custom modification from intel. It also allowed Sony to add more features and reduce weight in Vaio Z.

The motherboard is whatever size they want to make it. Nothing's changed. You must be talking about that new packaging Intel's doing. That's nifty and all, but not anything specific to this update, and anything power users care about.

No HDMI output wasn't in SR. It is new with Montevina. Apple would have had to alter the standard SR chipset to offer in the past. Now it comes standard with Montevina.

You're talking about this low end stuff again. I don't care about that-people buying low end don't need any of these updates, and any of these features have been offered in even low end systems. Heck, the Macbook's always been able to work just fine with HDMI, and plenty of other low end systems come with HDMI outputs if you care about that.

Using the stock Montevina chipset from intel, rather than modifying everything as Apple and others did for SR, reduces duplication of functions, wasted circuitry, and wasted space and lowers cost for Apple.

Which is what it is, but it's nothing special.

This is *STILL* just a FSB bump. That's the only real update this is brining (along with a lower power draw). Penryn and the quad core Penryn are the only too relatively large bumps from Intel this year for notebooks.

Look at all the new model laptops that are being introduced as a result of the Montevina chipset and 2nd gen. penryn.

Sure, but it's just because it's a convenient time to release models. Some stuff released now doesn't even use the new chipset.

Nothing wrong with this bump, but it's really nothing special. Penryn is fairly boring, but that's monumental compared to this.

adedu

Aug 24, 2008, 08:14 PM

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

Laptopmag covers (http://blog.laptopmag.com/intel-spits-out-the-notebook-news-mobile-quad-core-calpella-wimax-chips) some of the announcements made at Intel's Developer's Forum. The general manager of Intel's Mobility Group Dadi Perlmutter discussed current and future Intel mobile processor technology. These products and features should find their way into Apple laptops over time.

First of all, Perlmutter revealed that high end notebooks with their latest chipsets can now support Quad Core configurations. Quad Core notebooks are currently in production and will be available in a month. Of course, this means that Apple could also support Quad Core configurations in their MacBook Pros. Although Apple's MacBook Pro has been rumored to be undergoing a revision in September, no rumors have pegged Quad Core computing as a feature.

One major focus of the talk was Intel's upcoming processor shift to Nehalem. The next generation mobile platform is known as "Calpella" and is said to make the current systems "pale in comparison". Intel detailed a new technology (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10020589-64.html?hhTest=1) in the Nehalem processors called "Turbo Mode". Turbo Mode allows processors to turn off unused cores for improved power manangement. Other changes include (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150038/intel_laptop_platform_to_boost_graphics_power_use.html) the integration of memory controller and the graphics core into the CPU for Nehalem-based laptops. This removes the need for an integrated graphics chipset and should boost graphics performance, though not to the same degree as a dedicated video hardware. Other enhancements are detailed by PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150038/intel_laptop_platform_to_boost_graphics_power_use.html):While the first version of Nehalem's server chips will arrive later this year, the mobile version of Nehalem will not be available until the second half of 2009.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/20/intel-discusses-mobile-nehalem-quad-core-notebooks-coming-next-month/)

Say so much,I cant read it^^………………

wchua24

Aug 25, 2008, 09:24 AM

after they release this i think prices of c2q will be cheaper ..

Tman1523

Aug 25, 2008, 09:56 AM

I suppose, but that's been done prior to this update, and it's still not a big deal for people who just care about power.

According to Intel? I'm not buying any of that this time. I wasn't even aware they were advertising that again. They made those same claims LAST update, and they ended up amounting to basically nothing. The technology was ignored.

But again, who cares? It's been on systems for the better part of a decade.

The motherboard is whatever size they want to make it. Nothing's changed. You must be talking about that new packaging Intel's doing. That's nifty and all, but not anything specific to this update, and anything power users care about.

You're talking about this low end stuff again. I don't care about that-people buying low end don't need any of these updates, and any of these features have been offered in even low end systems. Heck, the Macbook's always been able to work just fine with HDMI, and plenty of other low end systems come with HDMI outputs if you care about that.

Which is what it is, but it's nothing special.

This is *STILL* just a FSB bump. That's the only real update this is brining (along with a lower power draw). Penryn and the quad core Penryn are the only too relatively large bumps from Intel this year for notebooks.

Sure, but it's just because it's a convenient time to release models. Some stuff released now doesn't even use the new chipset.

Nothing wrong with this bump, but it's really nothing special. Penryn is fairly boring, but that's monumental compared to this.

Wolfpup what kind of mac do u have?