Intel Launches Low Cost Quad-Core Mobile Processor and New Core 2 Duos

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/30/intel-launches-low-cost-quad-core-mobile-processor-and-new-core-2-duos/)

Over the weekend, Intel added (http://www.techspot.com/news/33035-Intel-launches-lower-priced-quadcore-notebook-chip.html) five new mobile CPUs to their product line. The most notable addition is a Core 2 Quad Q9000 processor which is a quad-core processor that runs at a speed of 2.0GHz and is available for only $348 in 1000 unit lots. The cost of this quad-core chip is significantly less than its earlier counterparts. Acer has already announced a new Quad-core notebook based on the chip. Meanwhile, at least one site (http://apcmag.com/apple_prepping_a_quadcore_macbook_pro.htm) has suggested that Apple could do the same with a new 17" MacBook Pro model which is due for an update.

Even if Apple does not adopt this new mobile quad-core processor, Intel has also added four new dual-core options that would be suitable for either Apple's notebook or iMac product line. The new processors include a 2.53GHz, two 2.66GHz and a 2.93GHz model. Apple's current notebook offerings top out at 2.8GHz as a build-to-order option. Apple could also use these processors in the expected iMac updates.

Article Link: Intel Launches Low Cost Quad-Core Mobile Processor and New Core 2 Duos (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/30/intel-launches-low-cost-quad-core-mobile-processor-and-new-core-2-duos/)

[OCraised]

Put it in the iMac!!

[guzhogi]

Hmm… Quad core at 2.0 GHz or dual core at 2.93 GHz. Not sure which Apple will use. Maybe both, w/ one as BTO. But I think I'll wait until Nehalem comes to the Mac before buying a new Mac.

[Tallest Skil]

Hmm… Quad core at 2.0 GHz or dual core at 2.93 GHz. Not sure which Apple will use. Maybe both, w/ one as BTO. But I think I'll wait until Nehalem comes to the Mac before buying a new Mac.

If you don't want a Mac Pro, you'll be waiting until Q1 2010.

[alexbates]

I would love to have one on my iPhone nano!

[derek1984]

So I would guess that the Macbook Pro gets refreshed in April or May with an update of 2.53 standard and 2.66 for the higher end.

[Abstract]

For now, I'd rather have either the fastest dual core.

[sk8mash]

If you don't want a Mac Pro, you'll be waiting until Q1 2010.

The knower of all has spoken.

[svndmvn]

If you don't want a Mac Pro, you'll be waiting until Q1 2010.

what about slightly updated Macbooks and Pros? Still around april/may/june?

[RemarkabLee]

what about slightly updated Macbooks and Pros? Still around april/may/june?

They were the most recent lines updated, so they will probably be mid-late '09 before the next updates.

For now, I'd rather have either the fastest dual core.

+1

A fast dual core with the Nvidia chipset along with OpenCL and Grand Central should be a good combination for years to come :)

[ditzy]

Ok somebody has to ask it, so it might as well be me. Quad core 2.0Ghz vs 3.06Ghz Duo? Discuss.

[RemarkabLee]

Ok somebody has to ask it, so it might as well be me. Quad core 2.0Ghz vs 3.06Ghz Duo? Discuss.

Depends on what you are using the Mac for. Video encoding, more cores will be used (if using Compressor, or other multi threaded apps). For normal use, a lot of the time, multi cores are not used to their best potential - at least until Snow Leopard comes out with Grand Central technology. So as things stand for the time being for the next 6-12 months, faster clock speeds for dual-core would be the best choice - for most people.

Given enough time for Grand Central to mature, more cores will be utilised more effectivly, so then it'll be a case of more cores the better - generally speaking. I'd expect there will be a lot of benchmarks during this time and lots of arguments... ;)

[arn]

Ok somebody has to ask it, so it might as well be me. Quad core 2.0Ghz vs 3.06Ghz Duo? Discuss.

traditionally, unless you are doing very specific multi-core optimized tasks, it's dual 3.0ghz.

But... Snow Leopard could change that equation a bit if all the promises are true and developers take advantage of it.

arn

[yetanotherdave]

If you don't want a Mac Pro, you'll be waiting until Q1 2010.

i7 mobile is due q3/4 2009, I can't see apple wanting to drag on upping it's line to i7, it's not like penryn/santa rosa transitions where the chip is still called a core2duo, it's a whole new line, that the average consumer will see and want updates quickly, as well as more technical people/

[kastenbrust]

Ok somebody has to ask it, so it might as well be me. Quad core 2.0Ghz vs 3.06Ghz Duo? Discuss.

The 3.06Ghz Duo is by far the superior option for a Macbook Pro at the moment, and therefore i doubt Apple will put it in their laptops

[Tallest Skil]

The knower of all has spoken.

Well, since mobile Nehalem chips won't go into production until Q4 2009...

[ditzy]

traditionally, unless you are doing very specific multi-core optimized tasks, it's dual 3.0ghz.

But... Snow Leopard could change that equation a bit if all the promises are true and developers take advantage of it.

arn

So basically in Leopard it's best to have 3.0Ghz Duo, in Snow Leopard it will be best to have 2.0Ghz Quad?

[bmpwe]

A quick look here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343+1302825342+50001157&Configurator=&Subcategory=343&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=) [newegg.com] makes me think the $348 for the quad core isn't such a great deal...

I know they probably use newer technology and all, but is that still really a good deal?

[talkingfuture]

This would be great in the 17" MBP, maybe it has something to do with the delay.

Must be a shoe in for a future iMac as well.

[SpaceMagic]

Couldn't the QUAD basically go into the iMac? I thought it used mobile cores anyway. . .

[ditzy]

Couldn't the QUAD basically go into the iMac? I thought it used mobile cores anyway. . .

I suspect that it will happen, probably before it will on MBP's

[fendol]

This is a mobile CPU first and foremost. Acer is already taking the plunge and creating a new laptop with the Q9000, I wonder if Apple will follow suit. Me hopes for the 17" MBP:cool::apple:http://www.seoagora.com/img/459/k08q1024glza/ecstatic.gifhttp://www.seoagora.com/img/1261/v08t1201sxfb/cheers.gifhttp://www.seoagora.com/img/589/d08l1104oulu/smiley2.gif

[Umbongo]

I think it is more likely that Apple will use the rumoured 65W TDP versions of the Q8200, Q9400 and Q9550 than a mobile quad core. The mobile quad cores just can't replace the current chips being use in the iMac.

[QCassidy352]

So basically in Leopard it's best to have 3.0Ghz Duo, in Snow Leopard it will be best to have 2.0Ghz Quad?

you just considerably over-simplified what arn posted. In leopard it's best to have a 3.0 duo unless you heavily use multi-core-aware apps. In snow leopard it will be best to have the 2.0 quad if Grand Central is as good as advertised and developers take advantage of it.

[rockdog]

Put it in the iMac!!

I might be wrong but I am starting to think the iMac update is going to be underwhelming for most

[Superman07]

How are people arriving at quad core iMacs when the announcement was for a quad core processor that is slower than the current iMac offerings. :confused:

[aaronsullivan]

Grand Central in Snow Leopard is not going to be impressive for a year or more when products developed using it become more prevalent.

IMO, it SHOULD happen as the multicore dilemma has been around for awhile and devs will hopefully want to finally jump on it as much as possible to give an edge (and an extra buzzword) to their app. :)

[danielwsmithee]

How are people arriving at quad core iMacs when the announcement was for a quad core processor that is slower than the current iMac offerings. :confused:This was just the cheep version of the quad core mobile processor. About a month ago intel started shipping the Qx9300 which is a quad-core 2.53 Ghz processor that would work great for the iMac. My guess is the high end 24" iMac will have this. It disipates 35W so it might be a little too much for the MBP.

[CrackedButter]

I would love it if a new 17" MBP was the be all and end all in desktop replacement. It is something to look forward to as long as they don't butcher all the ports. More than 1 firewire port please and keep the 3 usb ones as well Apple!

[kastenbrust]

This would be great in the 17" MBP, maybe it has something to do with the delay.

Must be a shoe in for a future iMac as well.

No this wouldnt be great in the 17" MBP, it would be a disaster! The MBP would run about 30% slower with the quad core unless you were using applications SPECIFICALLY designed for quad core cpu's, plus it would overheat more, causing even worse problems, if they put this quad core in the MBP only goons who dont know about processors would buy it thinking 'oh quad core oh quad core must be amazing'

[Shasterball]

Who wants an 18.4" notebook. Ridiculous.

[Michael73]

I would think that for the average user who uses an iMac for email, websurfing, MS Office (for kids writing school reports) or iWork, the difference between a dual and quad chip would be minimal...a few seconds here and there.

Nevertheless, a quad chip is going to have a considerably longer useful shelf life. I think part of the goodness that comes from buying a Mac is that they can continue to run quite well for a long time with viable OS upgrades as evidenced by people here running machines 3-5 years old and older who are quite happy with the day-to-day performance of their systems. If a person buys into the extended replacement cycle of the hardware (in conjunction with the continued backwards compatibility of the software) then a quad core chip is a no brainer.

[danielwsmithee]

No this wouldnt be great in the 17" MBP, it would be a disaster! The MBP would run about 30% slower with the quad core unless you were using applications SPECIFICALLY designed for quad core cpu's, plus it would overheat more, causing even worse problems, if they put this quad core in the MBP only goons who dont know about processors would buy it thinking 'oh quad core oh quad core must be amazing'The Q9000 can be clocked up to 2.53 GHz. Most 17" MBP users do a lot of video encoding. The quad would be a faster for them.

[poundsmack]

Toss one of those T seriese dual cores in a mac mini and i am sold!

[iMacmatician]

Over the weekend, Intel added (http://www.techspot.com/news/33035-Intel-launches-lower-priced-quadcore-notebook-chip.html) five new mobile CPUs to their product line. The most notable addition is a Core 2 Quad Q9000 processor which is a quad-core processor that runs at a speed of 2.0GHz and is available for only $348 in 1000 unit lots. The cost of this quad-core chip is significantly less than its earlier counterparts.I think the TDP is 45 W, which may or may not be too hot for the 17" MacBook Pro (depending on cooling system). Even if it fits, Apple generally does not allow quad-cores to clock lower than dual-cores in the same product line, so we may not see this quad-core. But if the 17" is separated from the 15" in the same way the 15" is separated from the 13", then we could see the quad-core! :)

Even if Apple does not adopt this new mobile quad-core processor, Intel has also added four new dual-core options that would be suitable for either Apple's notebook or iMac product line. The new processors include a 2.53GHz, two 2.66GHz and a 2.93GHz model. Apple's current notebook offerings top out at 2.8GHz as a build-to-order option. Apple could also use these processors in the expected iMac updates. Hence the 133 MHz notebook speed bump speculation. The 17" MacBook Pro would most likely (if no quad) use these new CPUs, and maybe the 15" MacBook Pro will have a silent update to them.

If the iMac updates go with these CPUs and not the quad-cores, since 2.93 GHz is lower than 3.07 GHz, Intel may make a custom 3.2 GHz dual-core for the iMac.

The Q9000 can be clocked up to 2.53 GHz. Most 17" MBP users do a lot of video encoding. The quad would be a would be faster for them.2.53 GHz? By overclocking individual cores? Anyway, I totally agree. Plus the quad-core will (hopefully) help in the long run with Snow Leopard's Grand Central.

Quad-core iMacs, quad-core MacBook Pro, I'm being too optimistic… :rolleyes::D

[tri3limited]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

iMac update might be as simple as mini-display port and a slight processor upgrade.

Realistically the Pro models (Mac Pro and MacBook Pro) should, in my opinion, have optional quad-core. The prosumer models (24" iMac and top of range MacBook) to have decent enough stuff to do the job of a semi-pro and finally the Mini and low-end MacBooks should cater for people after a cheaper Mac.

Lets face it in most cases iMacs are used for an awful lot more than internet and word docs but if you really need all the extra power, which very very few home users do, then you're probably a pro user and a Mac Pro would be more applicable. My only wish is that the MacBook Pro can equate or outshine the iMac as then there really is a defined Pro range and Consumer range of products.

Just my $0.02...

[63dot]

If things go like past history, Dell or HP will come out with ultra cheap quad core laptop, followed by Apple which will offer it kind of high, then lower the price eventually.

I am just waiting for Apple to be the "first" to score a model with Intel's latest before Dell, HP, or Acer. We are on the same playing field being in Silicon Valley where HP/Compaq is located and where Dell has a huge R and D plant. Intel, and AMD are in the vicinity. The chips we use against the PC competition, and chipset, and graphics chip set, are the same.

If Apple lowers prices, and people start looking more for long term value in this to be long recession, this could be good for Apple and their long term strategy. Apple has $25 billion in the bank which is amazing considering Microsoft has $70 billion and is a much, much larger company. Apple has the leverage now to knock out the cheap PC market by offering a low priced Mac. My $599 mini Mac certainly gained a whole legion of switchers from the PC side.

[kastenbrust]

Apple has $25 billion in the bank which is amazing considering Microsoft has $70 billion and is a much, much larger company

Lets not get carried away, Apple has $15Billion in the bank, of which most is liquid assets so not even really in the bank anyway.

[SpinThis!]

Depends on what you are using the Mac for. Video encoding, more cores will be used (if using Compressor, or other multi threaded apps).
Yeh, as a general rule, anytime you need to have a lot of threads (or applications) but don't need as much cpu speed a lower-speed quad core would be better. Clock usually wins out over multiple cores in the speed department—especially in this example, a 1 ghz difference. If you're using a lot of the Pro Apps or applications that actually take advantage of multiple cores, a quad core will probably be better... for example, running GarageBand or Logic with a lot of dsp plugins or lots of tracks, you'd probably see better performance on a quad core at a lower clock than a higher clock dual core.

On the dual core side, iMovie doesn't really take advantage of multiple cores so rendering some video from there will benefit more from a higher clock. Or using handBrake to encode h.264 videos, a 3.0 ghz will handily beat a 2 ghz quad core machine. Some applications simply don't scale well to 4 cores.

Grand Central may help some applications but some applications won't even bother with a Mac OS X only technology (eg handbrake).

[Umbongo]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

Not anymore. The Mac Pros will always have many other features as selling points, and the 2009 Mac Pros will be faster than any quad core iMac.

[Quartz Extreme]

A quick look here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343+1302825342+50001157&Configurator=&Subcategory=343&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=) [newegg.com] makes me think the $348 for the quad core isn't such a great deal...

I know they probably use newer technology and all, but is that still really a good deal?

Those are desktop chips...

The $348 is for a quad-core mobile processor.

[sbarton]

I would think that for the average user who uses an iMac for email, websurfing, MS Office (for kids writing school reports) or iWork, the difference between a dual and quad chip would be minimal...a few seconds here and there.


Very true. The only thing that could reallly push the existing core2 systems for the majority of home users would be games, and since Apple has abandoned the bulk of the gaming market theres not much need there either.

Oh wait, we could use faster processors to speed up the emulation of DX9 under OpenGL for the cider(bastard) games they throw at us so we can get 30fps on a game that would do 75fps on the same system under XP...but I doubt anyone wants to talk about that situation....

[ChrisA]

[QUOTE=QCassidy352;6839049]In snow leopard it will be best to have the 2.0 quad if Grand Central is as good as advertised and developers take advantage of it.[/QUOTE

It will take developers one full cycle to take advantage of the features in snow leopard. Of some of them who work at Apple might pick up on this faster. So we might expect the next version of FCP or Aperture to have better multi-threading but it will take the folks at Adobe a couple YEARS to dothe same. How long did it take Adobe to take advantage of the Intel processor?

[saisrujan]

Guess we're losing focus.

Does it really make sense any more to go running after GHz numbers again now that we're approaching the magical 3GHz again? (Don't you think we've all been there done that?)

Get me SSDs, get me faster FSB and RAM (Not sure if Apple's on the cutting edge here).

Didn't someone say - Improve the performance of software. Don't rely on faster hardware to run your slow programs.

Aah well... now that we have faster processors, we'll eat 'em anyway. :D

[-hh]

A quick look here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343+1302825342+50001157&Configurator=&Subcategory=343&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=) [newegg.com] makes me think the $348 for the quad core isn't such a great deal...

I know they probably use newer technology and all, but is that still really a good deal?

Yes, because you're comparing a low power consumption "mobile applications" CPU to a "heat & power is no object" desktop CPU.

The catch is that the iMac has been using mobile CPUs due to thermal (and noise) management issues of its case design. There was some recent rumbling about some new thermal management stuff, so it is possible that this might possibly change...but personally, I doubt that that's particularly likely.



Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

Not necessarily - - the Mac Pro has a 1600MHz FSB and gobs of internal data management, which I suspect isn't going to be matched by this new CPU.

...or if it is matched, then it would be versus the 2008 revision Mac Pro, not the 2009 revision.

[quote]Realistically the Pro models (Mac Pro and MacBook Pro) should, in my opinion, have optional quad-core. The prosumer models (24" iMac and top of range MacBook) to have decent enough stuff to do the job of a semi-pro and finally the Mini and low-end MacBooks should cater for people after a cheaper Mac.[/qote]

A reasonable assertion, assuming that the change in CPU is a drop-in to an existing motherboard. However, even here we have to tread a bit carefully, as one thing that Apple hasn't done (well, at least not recently) is to build a system that isn't nicely matched. Afterall, system performance is more than just the CPU; one needs to make sure that the other pipes don't get bottlenecked, which ends up with the CPU being strangled for data.

I mention this because one of the things that some cheap PC companies have done is to drop an expensive new CPU onto a cheap old motherboard because they're aware that many PC customers buy based on "what CPU' and then on price. They stop reading specs after the CPU, and that old motherboard is cheap because it has a slower FSB, narrower pipes, etc. The customer ends up with a bottlenecked design that hamstrings the CPU's performance ...but on paper, it looks like it has great specs for bragging rights.


-hh

[-hh]

I am just waiting for Apple to be the "first" to score a model with Intel's latest before Dell, HP, or Acer. We are on the same playing field being in Silicon Valley where HP/Compaq is located and where Dell has a huge R and D plant. Intel, and AMD are in the vicinity. The chips we use against the PC competition, and chipset, and graphics chip set, are the same.


IIRC, Apple being "first" with a CPU has happened twice recently.

The MacBook Air's CPU was the most recent.

The one before that was IIRC in the Mac Pro; can't recall which CPU...



-hh

[saisrujan]

Afterall, system performance is more than just the CPU; one needs to make sure that the other pipes don't get bottlenecked, which ends up with the CPU being strangled for data.

+1.

Apple has so far been maintaining decent harmony between CPU speed, FSB and RAM. That's the reason I said I'm not too impressed with just a CPU speed-bump - I want faster FSB and RAM.

[DaveDaveDave]

No this wouldnt be great in the 17" MBP, it would be a disaster! The MBP would run about 30% slower with the quad core unless you were using applications SPECIFICALLY designed for quad core cpu's, plus it would overheat more, causing even worse problems, if they put this quad core in the MBP only goons who dont know about processors would buy it thinking 'oh quad core oh quad core must be amazing'

Er... and people like me, who max out all their CPU cores perpetually, no matter how many they have. Try running a DAW like Cubase or Logic with 25 tracks and 30 plugins - the multiple cores will help you get back to low latency. Then there's my day job...

I say throw it in as a build-to-order option - and let us goons decide!

Dave

[electronboy]

The possibilty of a quad core laptop causes me to salivate! :D

[danielwsmithee]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

iMac update might be as simple as mini-display port and a slight processor upgrade.The problem is the iMac is not just competing against the Mac Pro and Mac Mini. It is also the primary machine used for comparison against desktops from other PC manufacturers when people are considering switching. Dell/HP etc are offering quad-core machines at almost half the price of dual-core iMac. People will pay a premium for the iMac's design and software but it still needs to be somewhat competitive on a cost/performance basis.

[OriginalMacRat]

Meanwhile, at least one site (http://apcmag.com/apple_prepping_a_quadcore_macbook_pro.htm) has suggested that Apple could do the same with a new 17" MacBook Pro model which is due for an update.

Due for an update?

The 17" MacBook Pro was updated recently. It didn't get a new shell, but it was updated.

[commander.data]

Well all mobile quad cores have a 45W TDP which means they won't be showing up in the MacBook Pro since the MBP has never used 45W TDP chips. Which is why the max BTO on the 15" MBP is 2.8GHz since at the time that was Intel's highest clocked chip while still maintaining a 35W TDP. Apple will probably use one of the new 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo in the 17" Unibody MBP with the 2.93GHz as BTO.

Personally, my biggest complaint about Apple CPU choices for the MacBook Pro is that they use 3MB L2 cache chips in the product line. The MBP really should stick exclusively to 6MB L2 cache chips.

And the mobile quad cores are all too slow and too expensive for the iMac. Which I guess really means Apple needs to move the iMac over to the upcoming 65W TDP desktop quad cores.

[iMacmatician]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.Not necessarily. The Mac Pro has a lot of pro features that the iMac lacks, and it is also overkill for many.

Concerning just the CPU, the fastest 65 W quad-core, 2.83 GHz (which may be standard on the top 24" iMac or optional), is a hair faster in GHz than the lowest Mac Pro quad-core, 2.8 GHz, and falls behind in FSB speed (1067 MHz vs. 1600 MHz), so it may actually be slower. And the Nehalem update will put the Mac Pro well ahead of the iMac.

On the dual core side, iMovie doesn't really take advantage of multiple cores so rendering some video from there will benefit more from a higher clock. I can see it now. iLife '09 fully optimized for multi-core. :D

Apple has so far been maintaining decent harmony between CPU speed, FSB and RAM. That's the reason I said I'm not too impressed with just a CPU speed-bump - I want faster FSB and RAM.At least with the iMac's possible transition to 65 W quad-core, the desktop CPUs are a lot cheaper than equivalent-GHz mobile CPUs, which means that Apple could give a double benefit by delivering faster CPUs and (significantly) better other components for the same prices.

Personally, my biggest complaint about Apple CPU choices for the MacBook Pro is that they use 3MB L2 cache chips in the product line. The MBP really should stick exclusively to 6MB L2 cache chips.Totally agreed there. Keep the MacBooks to 3 MB L2 cache if you want, but leave all the MacBook Pros at 6 MB!

The most we can hope for is a 133 MHz speed bump for the MBPs…still with 3 MB L2 cache on the entry-level model.

[Michael73]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

Not hardly and anyone who thinks so has clearly had a poor sales experience. I mean aside from the obvious like this one has a built-in screen and this doesn't, the entire guts are different and then there's the expandability part like, "Hey, how 'bout 8 RAM slots, places for 4 hard drives and 4 video cards, RAID card, etc."

I may get hammered for the following statement, but the MP attracts 3 distinct buyers:

Professional Users (and those who think they are Professional Users)
Those who are bleeding edge and want the latest and greatest (but don't need the horsepower and are just looking for bragging rights)
Those who don't the horsepower but want to future-proof themselves


I think there is a completely different list for iMac buyers. Even with a quad-core the iMac while useful life lengthening cannot compete with the future-proofing capabilities of the MacPro. The integrated monitor alone helps along its obsolecense. I mean, think back 3-5 years ago and where LCD technology was and we haven't gotten to the innerds.

[kastenbrust]

Er... and people like me, who max out all their CPU cores perpetually, no matter how many they have. Try running a DAW like Cubase or Logic with 25 tracks and 30 plugins - the multiple cores will help you get back to low latency. Then there's my day job...

I say throw it in as a build-to-order option - and let us goons decide!

Dave

because overclocking a quad core in a macbook pro would be a clever idea, let me think about that, ummm no! not unless it has liquid nitrogen cooling! the new unibody's already run at around 90C so using all 4 cores, including being overclocked, HAHAHAHA

[KingYaba]

Quad Core 17" sounds neat. Any worries about heat?

[CrackedButter]

Due for an update?

The 17" MacBook Pro was updated recently. It didn't get a new shell, but it was updated.

Hardly, when you consider the update the other 2 laptops received.

[MM2270]

traditionally, unless you are doing very specific multi-core optimized tasks, it's dual 3.0ghz.

But... Snow Leopard could change that equation a bit if all the promises are true and developers take advantage of it.

arn

I was thinking that too. Generally, under Leopard as it exists now, I'd want the fast dual core chip, but if Snow Leopard is optimized for quad core chips, a quad 2.0 Mac could be quite fast.
Still, outside of the OS, other apps have to be optimized to take advantage of it as well to really see the benefit, so it might be a good long term investment, not necessarily instant gratification.

[iMacmatician]

because overclocking a quad core in a macbook pro would be a clever idea, let me think about that, ummm no! not unless it has liquid nitrogen cooling! the new unibody's already run at around 90C so using all 4 cores, including being overclocked, HAHAHAHAWhat overclocking?

Quad Core 17" sounds neat. Any worries about heat?Existing mobile CPUs put out 35 W. The quad-core mobile CPUs put out 45 W, which may be too hot for the MacBook Pro.

(As an aside, maybe the quad-core could run at 2.0 GHz (45 W) with the 9400M and at a lower speed (≈35 W) with the 9600M GT.)

[diamond.g]

Could all of this be why Apple is looking into liquid cooling again? Especially for the iMac. I would think Apple would want to find a way to be able to at least use an i920 in the iMac. Would give them something special to crow about.

[TopGear300]

So are any of these going into the macbooks? And anytime soon?:confused:

[-hh]

I may get hammered for the following statement, but the MP attracts 3 distinct buyers:

Professional Users (and those who think they are Professional Users)
Those who are bleeding edge and want the latest and greatest (but don't need the horsepower and are just looking for bragging rights)
Those who don't the horsepower but want to future-proof themselves


As a "waiting for Nehalem before I buy a Mac Pro to replace my G5 PowerMac" demographic buyer....

(no, this is not a hammering)

...I'd say that you're mostly on track, with a minor twist (at least for myself) for the third buyer that you list.

I'm looking for a Mac Pro to future-proof myself to a degree, but also because I know that no matter how much horsepower I buy, I'll "eventually" use it all.

Today, I consider my G5 to be pretty slow, but its not because the machine has gotten slower, but I'm asking it to do more and more as my needs have grown. As such, its no longer sprinting under a light load, but lumbering along because its carrying the weight of the world.

So what has changed? Me. I've moved from a ~0.3MP camera to a 4MP camera ... then to an 8MP camera ... and I'm looking now at the 21MP Canon 5Dmk2. This means that I'm about to be asking my machine to process files that are 70x bigger/heavier from a "computational demands" perspective than when it was new. Gosh, its no wonder that it seems to have become a tad slow.

As such, I'll probably buy (again) the middle offering in the Mac Tower lineup, as the top is overly expensive because of the law of diminishing returns for performance that I don't utterly have to have today, and the bottom often has something that hamstrings it in some way. It will run around $3K, but the way that I look at it, that's only $500/year.

And insofar as my current G5? Its going to be re-purposed as a Server and its ~3TB of storage will be an alternative to buying a time capsule or a multi-bay NAS.


-hh

[kastenbrust]

Could all of this be why Apple is looking into liquid cooling again? Especially for the iMac. I would think Apple would want to find a way to be able to at least use an i920 in the iMac. Would give them something special to crow about.

i was wondering that too, they did file a patent about a year ago for a high pressure minature water cooling system for notebooks, but nothing was heard of it since, and i think that if the quad core cpu's were put into the macbook pro range when it needs updating again in about a year then this would fit with apples 2 year development to sale history, only speculation though.

[iMacmatician]

Could all of this be why Apple is looking into liquid cooling again? Especially for the iMac. I would think Apple would want to find a way to be able to at least use an i920 in the iMac. Would give them something special to crow about.The iMac would somehow have to support a CPU with over double the TDP of the current 3.07 GHz dual-core.

So are any of these going into the macbooks? And anytime soon?:confused:Probably not. The next update is likely to be in the spring with another 133 MHz speed bump.

[TopGear300]

will the macbooks get the quad cores or just the dual cores... probablly just the dual cores right?:apple:

[viperguy]

The possibilty of a quad core laptop causes me to salivate! :D

There are many available already..

at the competition ;)

[bug67]

This would be awesome if Apple would actually opt in. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem concerned these days with competing with other computer companies. Cell phones seem to be their main business these days.

Other computer companies update their products on a regular basis and stay competitive. Where's my 17" + entertainment notebook with huge amounts of hard drive space, 4 + gigs of ram, blue ray drive and quad core processors? HP and Sony have these for thousands less than what Apple would charge for comparable machines. Ok, maybe not the quads but they do have the latest dual cores. The HPs are available with a quad core I believe. Apple can't even update but once every year? If that? Pfft!

[diamond.g]

The iMac would somehow have to support a CPU with over double the TDP of the current 3.07 GHz dual-core.


Hmm, I was just thinking of a way to utilize heatpipes (filled with say silver or some high heat conductor and maybe a peltier cooler.

Bah oh well. Yes the i920 has a killer TDP, but we all trust Apple is awesome enough to fit one in an iMac right? Right? :o

[commander.data]

Hmm, I was just thinking of a way to utilize heatpipes (filled with say silver or some high heat conductor and maybe a peltier cooler.

Bah oh well. Yes the i920 has a killer TDP, but we all trust Apple is awesome enough to fit one in an iMac right? Right? :o
Nehalem uses a completely different platform than FSB based processors. There isn't much point is custom designing an iMac just to put in the i920 and then a separate iMac design for FSB processors. And there's no way Apple can base an entire product line on a single processor.

Besides, for most things Nehalem doesn't offer much advantage over Penryn. Admittedly, rendering is a lot faster, but still no match for the dual quad cores in the Mac Pro. And it's not like Intel intends Nehalem to directly replace Penryn yet so Apple isn't really behind the times. Nehalem will continue to be a niche in desktops with the Core i7 until the mainstream Core i5 (only dual channel DDR3, northbridge integrated, etc.) comes and pushes Penryn out.

[ChrisA]

And insofar as my current G5? Its going to be re-purposed as a Server and its ~3TB of storage will be an alternative to buying a time capsule or a multi-bay NAS.

I used to do this too but then I worked out some math

Electric power cost $0.20 per KWH. The G5 uses (at least) 0.15 KW so it costs $0.03 per hour to run. Over a three year lifetime it costs about $780 to run and that's if you never never run air conditioning and never power up the monitor using it purely as a file server.

It might be cheaper over all to buy a RAID enclosure.

[hiimamac]

Hmm… Quad core at 2.0 GHz or dual core at 2.93 GHz. Not sure which Apple will use. Maybe both, w/ one as BTO. But I think I'll wait until Nehalem comes to the Mac before buying a new Mac.

That would mean Apple could discount their units to make them more price competitive, and sell them for what their worth.

Wait, oh, it's Apple, the same company that released the MB and MBP using the same body, technique and charges $700 for 2 more inches, express slot and firewire 800 only. Never mind.

:cool:

[Eidorian]

Apple really missed the boat back in 2006 by not going with Conroe and building the iMac to that specification.

With the 65W LGA775 and the lower priced mobile Q9xxx Series which has been out since earlier this year they have a lot of options.

I'm still prepared to be disappointed.

[macjiro]

The problem is the iMac is not just competing against the Mac Pro and Mac Mini. It is also the primary machine used for comparison against desktops from other PC manufacturers when people are considering switching. Dell/HP etc are offering quad-core machines at almost half the price of dual-core iMac. People will pay a premium for the iMac's design and software but it still needs to be somewhat competitive on a cost/performance basis.

This is right. Apple will need to do this cause this is the first time in their entire history where the economy is turning towards more economic depression. There will be a Switch....back. Its just a reality. You can't do the same things you did in recent years. If they could reinvent the MacMini/Imac into a revolutionary product and price package, it could bring in even more new users.

[relimw]

Yum, quad-core mini/AppleTV, I mean really, you know this is where they're going to take it...

[AidenShaw]

I used to do this too but then I worked out some math

Electric power cost $0.20 per KWH. The G5 uses (at least) 0.15 KW so it costs $0.03 per hour to run. Over a three year lifetime it costs about $780 to run and that's if you never never run air conditioning and never power up the monitor using it purely as a file server.

Actually, in the Bay area I'm paying $0.41/KWH.

That's why I got the HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server - at average usage 0.015 KW it adds up...

[SFStateStudent]

+1 My Mac Pro 3.0 definitely carries the load when it comes to everything my MacBook Air cannot handle, but I've never used it to its fullest capabilities. So I can agree with several posters that it could be overkill for some users/owners...

[Minimoose 360]

Man, just when we thought everything was figured out.

[diamond.g]

Nehalem uses a completely different platform than FSB based processors. There isn't much point is custom designing an iMac just to put in the i920 and then a separate iMac design for FSB processors. And there's no way Apple can base an entire product line on a single processor.

Besides, for most things Nehalem doesn't offer much advantage over Penryn. Admittedly, rendering is a lot faster, but still no match for the dual quad cores in the Mac Pro. And it's not like Intel intends Nehalem to directly replace Penryn yet so Apple isn't really behind the times. Nehalem will continue to be a niche in desktops with the Core i7 until the mainstream Core i5 (only dual channel DDR3, northbridge integrated, etc.) comes and pushes Penryn out.
If Apple could tame the 130W TDP then they could use all of the Core i7 CPUs. Then there would be no need to make two separate kinds of systems as they would just begin to transition everything over. Luckily the MP would still hold the overall speed crown (and core count crown) so Apple wouldn't have to worry about eating into MP sales.

[djjclark]

Lets not get carried away, Apple has $15Billion in the bank, of which most is liquid assets so not even really in the bank anyway.

latest 10K says 24.5 Billion in cash or liquid assets. You know something more?

[Bubba Satori]

Ok somebody has to ask it, so it might as well be me. Quad core 2.0Ghz vs 3.06Ghz Duo? Discuss.

If you're doing a lot of 3d rendering, the quad, otherwise the Duo.

[Bubba Satori]

Who wants an 18.4" notebook. Ridiculous.

People who have different needs than yours. Not ridiculous.

[Bubba Satori]

So are any of these going into the macbooks? And anytime soon?:confused:


Doubt it. MBPs for the time being.

[flipperfeet]

This would be awesome if Apple would actually opt in. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem concerned these days with competing with other computer companies. Cell phones seem to be their main business these days...

I just do not see it this way, and the earnings and market share reporting do not support your view.

[alphaod]

A quick look here (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343+1302825342+50001157&Configurator=&Subcategory=343&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=) [newegg.com] makes me think the $348 for the quad core isn't such a great deal...

I know they probably use newer technology and all, but is that still really a good deal?

But those run at twice the wattage which mean 1 hours battery life. I don't want that!

[Eidorian]

If you're doing a lot of 3d rendering, the quad, otherwise the Duo.What about a dual core and a quad core at the same price?

But those run at twice the wattage which mean 1 hours battery life. I don't want that!You neglected the socket type and suggested heat dissapation.

[macmee]

Mobile quad + iMac? Sounds expensive:(.

[Eidorian]

Mobile quad + iMac? Sounds expensive:(.It does when you can get a quad core Dell for US$450. I can imagine that it's possible with the Q9000 with the final machine cost being over $1,000.

[macmee]

It does when you can get a quad core Dell for US$450. I can imagine that it's possible with the Q9000 with the final machine cost being over $1,000.

I was talking about compared to the current dual core imacs. I don't think quad iMacs would be starting at $1299 CAD;).

[Eidorian]

I was talking about compared to the current dual core imacs. I don't think quad iMacs would be starting at $1299 CAD;).Take a trip down memory lane and see how much the processors cost. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Core_2_Duo_2)

[timswim78]

Sorry if this is a naive question.

Will I be able to drop this into my current Socket P iMac? If so, I am ready to do it.

(I've already replaced an iMac hard drive, so I am not afraid to open it up again).

[ditzy]

you just considerably over-simplified what arn posted. In leopard it's best to have a 3.0 duo unless you heavily use multi-core-aware apps. In snow leopard it will be best to have the 2.0 quad if Grand Central is as good as advertised and developers take advantage of it.

I put a question mark to ask if I was understanding right. If I wasn't I'm a bit ditzy at times and wanted someone to correct me.

[dolphin842]

Actually, in the Bay area I'm paying $0.41/KWH.

That's why I got the HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server - at average usage 0.015 KW it adds up...

Wow, my rates hover around $0.07/KWH, but then again, you get to live in Bay Area, and I get to live in rural NC next to a huge coal plant:eek:.

Even still, I have a kill-a-watt, and I'm happy with the efficiency of the intel iMacs. My first-gen one doesn't pull more than 65W. I hope they keep using lower-power parts instead of the desktop chips.

[63dot]

IIRC, Apple being "first" with a CPU has happened twice recently.

The MacBook Air's CPU was the most recent.

The one before that was IIRC in the Mac Pro; can't recall which CPU...



-hh

That's true. The Mac Pro processor was only used in PC professional servers for a little more than a year, but no desktop stations from what I can see. Apple may be the first to offer it to a home user. The high end crowd for the Xeon were basically business rack mount customers via Dell and IBM.

[AidenShaw]

That's true. The Mac Pro processor was only used in PC professional servers for a little more than a year, but no desktop stations from what I can see.

Apple may be the first to offer it to a home user. The high end crowd for the Xeon were basically business rack mount customers via Dell and IBM.

All dual socket workstations from Dell, HP, SuperMicro and the rest used the same Xeon family chips as the Mac Pro.

The Xeon family is the only chip that works with more than one socket.

But, since all the others had dual-core and quad-core single socket systems - there wasn't as much demand for "home Xeons" from other vendors. Certainly some power users had dual socket systems like the Dell T5400 Workstation (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/reftopic.aspx/pub/products/precn_kat?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~section=T5400) (it's a lot smaller than a Mac Pro, by the way).

The Mac Pro is only a "home system" because of the huge gaping hole in Apple's product line where the quad-core mini-tower should be!

[rickeym]

Mobile quad + iMac? Sounds expensive:(.

I don't think the price will change much from what it is today.

[rickeym]

Sorry if this is a naive question.

Will I be able to drop this into my current Socket P iMac? If so, I am ready to do it.

(I've already replaced an iMac hard drive, so I am not afraid to open it up again).

Why?

[i make movies]

I understand these chips were 'released' today, and there's even a laptop from acer with a quad chip in it.

If the chips are released today, then when can we get them? I'm talking in general, not just in apple products. I did a very minute amount of searching online and the only thing I can find is the stupid press release posted on a dozens of different tech sites and not one vendor selling the chips or the laptop from acer...and I thought the whole intel tick-tock chip release process was complicated.

[63dot]

All dual socket workstations from Dell, HP, SuperMicro and the rest used the same Xeon family chips as the Mac Pro.

The Xeon family is the only chip that works with more than one socket.

But, since all the others had dual-core and quad-core single socket systems - there wasn't as much demand for "home Xeons" from other vendors. Certainly some power users had dual socket systems like the Dell T5400 Workstation (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/reftopic.aspx/pub/products/precn_kat?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~section=T5400) (it's a lot smaller than a Mac Pro, by the way).

The Mac Pro is only a "home system" because of the huge gaping hole in Apple's product line where the quad-core mini-tower should be!

I love my Mac mini. One day, maybe way down the line in 2010/late-2009, but I hope sooner, a quad core mini would be amazing. When a chip is announced in my backyard, we rarely listen because within months, now weeks these days, the price goes way down.

I think the Mac Pro may downsize but upgrade specs.

I am glad that Apple went with Intel.

[MikeAtari]

I was thinking that too. Generally, under Leopard as it exists now, I'd want the fast dual core chip, but if Snow Leopard is optimized for quad core chips, a quad 2.0 Mac could be quite fast.
Still, outside of the OS, other apps have to be optimized to take advantage of it as well to really see the benefit, so it might be a good long term investment, not necessarily instant gratification.

Let me just say, that if an application has already been optimized for a dual core machine, that means they've already broken down the app to be Multi-Threaded. This type of app can be easily "tuned" for a Quad Core, simply breaking the problem up again, and running 2 more threads.

So, the app's ought to be ready to run on a quad core TODAY. Actually, Application Developers should be checking the number of processors available, and starting additional threads depending upon the number of processors present, today. Because, Apple has servers that have 8 cores Today.

[AidenShaw]

I love my Mac mini. One day, maybe way down the line in 2010/late-2009, but I hope sooner, a quad core mini would be amazing.

Does your Mini look like one of those surreal cordless marketing images from Apple?

http://images.apple.com/macmini/images/design_hands20060228.jpg


Or have you had to convert it to a Mini-tower?

http://cultofmac.com/media/minitower_01.jpg


Or is it like most Minis that I've seen in friends' homes and offices - a complete mess of random wires and add-ons?

http://www.krunker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/029-thumb1.jpg


What's the point of buying a tiny computer for its style, then mucking it up with add-on crap because frankly it is too small to be useful for much of its target audience?

Apple should keep the Mini, but add a small tower with room for some disks, a modest PCIe x16 graphics card, one or two PCIe x1 slots.

And the small tower should be the quad core. If you need a quad core, you probably want more than a single laptop drive in your computer! (And of course, the mini-tower should use desktop CPUs and chipsets - rather than the more expensive for less power mobile versions.)

[Eidorian]

Sorry if this is a naive question.

Will I be able to drop this into my current Socket P iMac? If so, I am ready to do it.

(I've already replaced an iMac hard drive, so I am not afraid to open it up again).I doubt it. There's the pin out issue and the firmware support of the processor.

[Aea]

latest 10K says 24.5 Billion in cash or liquid assets. You know something more?

He's probably factoring that 24.49Bn in with 14.092Bn in Liabilities.

[igazza]

For my needs, and i believe most 17inch MBP owners out there need a quad-core CPU + we need 8GB ram

Makes sense for apple to put quads in imacs now because they will sell like crazy. and bring out new redesigned imacs in mid 09 that will also sell like crazy.:apple:

[Desfolio]

It would be nice to see these placed in the iMac and the 17" macbook pro w/ new enclosure at Macworld.

[macmee]

I'm still new to this, but they're going to be announced (if this is true) on the 5th on January? After they're announced, when do they start selling?

[neutrino23]

Who wants an 18.4" notebook. Ridiculous.

I do. I do.

Not ridiculous. Would work really well for the work I do.

[infernohellion]

Does your Mini look like one of those surreal cordless marketing images from Apple?


Or have you had to convert it to a Mini-tower?

Or is it like most Minis that I've seen in friends' homes and offices - a complete mess of random wires and add-ons?



What's the point of buying a tiny computer for its style, then mucking it up with add-on crap because frankly it is too small to be useful for much of its target audience?

Apple should keep the Mini, but add a small tower with room for some disks, a modest PCIe x16 graphics card, one or two PCIe x1 slots.

And the small tower should be the quad core. If you need a quad core, you probably want more than a single laptop drive in your computer! (And of course, the mini-tower should use desktop CPUs and chipsets - rather than the more expensive for less power mobile versions.)

Haha. Very true. But it's proven to be really good with plasma screens around shopping malls and airports though. Saw it at Bangkok airport once connected to the flight schedule screens.

I do. I do.

Not ridiculous. Would work really well for the work I do.

Agree. It's a really lame to generalize like that. I would love to see a 20" MBP.

[AidenShaw]

Haha. Very true. But it's proven to be really good with plasma screens around shopping malls and airports though. Saw it at Bangkok airport once connected to the flight schedule screens.

Thank you for helping me. The Mini is a good setup for a simple, fixed task like an airport kiosk application.

As an expandable system for normal folks doing normal stuff - well, it's not so good.

By the way, do they really continue to use plasma for kiosk apps? I'd think that the "burn-in" issues would be horrible.

[Brien]

So I would guess that the Macbook Pro gets refreshed in April or May with an update of 2.53 standard and 2.66 for the higher end.

Probably, if the TDP are the same, or close.

It'd really be marketing though, .1ghz bumps across the board does not an update make.

[Saladinos]

They were the most recent lines updated, so they will probably be mid-late '09 before the next updates.

Apple's notebooks are its flagship products. Snow Leopard is all about multi-core processing, so I'd expect an update to coincide with the Snow Leopard launch.

[Bubba Satori]

"Definitely, maybe." :D

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/201/1050201/quad-core-macbook-pro-coming

[twoodcc]

i hope to see these in new macs next week! maybe iMac and mac mini

[thedomus]

My only wish is that the MacBook Pro can equate or outshine the iMac as then there really is a defined Pro range and Consumer range of products.

Just my $0.02...

+1
I have a home music studio MacPro quad 3GHz and a small set-up in Central London to work through stuff with clients, and at the mo' that is run with a MBPro 2.5 (6GB RAM, 2x500GB HD internal) ... this is mainly for ease of keeping the software and plug-ins synced between the two machines! But the disparity between the machines on some Logic projects is hilarious!!!
I would love to have greater power slung in the MBPro, won't be long I suspect!

[63dot]

Does your Mini look like one of those surreal cordless marketing images from Apple?

http://images.apple.com/macmini/images/design_hands20060228.jpg


Or have you had to convert it to a Mini-tower?

http://cultofmac.com/media/minitower_01.jpg


Or is it like most Minis that I've seen in friends' homes and offices - a complete mess of random wires and add-ons?

http://www.krunker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/029-thumb1.jpg


What's the point of buying a tiny computer for its style, then mucking it up with add-on crap because frankly it is too small to be useful for much of its target audience?

Apple should keep the Mini, but add a small tower with room for some disks, a modest PCIe x16 graphics card, one or two PCIe x1 slots.

And the small tower should be the quad core. If you need a quad core, you probably want more than a single laptop drive in your computer! (And of course, the mini-tower should use desktop CPUs and chipsets - rather than the more expensive for less power mobile versions.)

I bet Apple can make a pro tower much smaller than the current Mac Pro, and use SSD, cooler chips as Intel announced yet another smaller wafer with lower voltage/heat, and with more speed and make it about half the size. It would be nice to see this happen soon.

[-hh]

I used to do this too but then I worked out some math

Electric power cost $0.20 per KWH. The G5 uses (at least) 0.15 KW so it costs $0.03 per hour to run. Over a three year lifetime it costs about $780 to run and that's if you never never run air conditioning and never power up the monitor using it purely as a file server.

It might be cheaper over all to buy a RAID enclosure.

Understood, but a couple of things come to mind.

The first is that any alternative is going to consume power, so some of your above electrical savings is smoke. In any event, I can generally use the home heating :)

The second is that I'd simply like to have an OS X server to play around with anyway.

The third is a bit of financial pragmatism: the cost to defer buying a replacement now is just electricity, and with the steep rate of decline in hard drive prices, it pays to wait for as long as reasonably possible. Personally, I expect that 1.5TB Seagates will be <$100 by no later than mid-2009.

The fourth reason is that I only have so many husband points for buying new toys. I'm not going to squander them on small peanuts.


-hh

[Patcoola]

can't wait to see a quad core imac

[Bubba Satori]

There are many available already..

at the competition ;)

HP, Lenovo, Dell, Sager all have quad laptops with 8-16GB of memory, two raidable HDs with Quadro video cards available.

[Kaptajn Haddock]

Here is what I think the quad processors will be used for.

Most definetly the iMac. Wether now or in 6 months when OS 10.6 hopefully
is out I don't know, but I believe that Apple will try to make all their Macs have more cores as soon as possible to take advantage of Grand Central. Remember that the OS it self will take advantage of multi cores as well. Not only pro apps.

I think the new iMac we will see in January will get LED-background light for the display, faster duo processors, maybe an easier way to change the harddrive like in the latest MBP's and it will get the already discussed new Nvidia graphics card which will take advantage of OS 10.6 as well.

[bengal85]

Must be a shoe in for a future iMac as well.


could be but didn't they just release a new Imac not that long ago. I don't know if mac will go for a new one so soon and if this is true than by the time mac comes out with a new Imac there will be a better processor out there.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Intel could come out with a million cores, I barely use the dual core on my system and very few even require 2 cores or more for video and HD imaging. Net books is where everything is heading something to get online do a search or two and get on with it.

I have yet to see a compelling reason for HD content, sure it might have a richer resolution, however most of the content available is worth only releasing on DVD.

[barkmonster]

...I'd be very interested to see what happens with iMac updates.

I've being kind of sitting on the fence and stuck in a rut since Apple moved to intel because there really isn't an affordable entry level tower like there used to be.

In an ideal world I'd be able to afford the 4 core Mac Pro but it's out of my price range so I need either an iMac that's got a little more kick and expansion than the current crop or an entry level tower that retails for around the £1,100 mark.

My first Power Mac was a beige G3 Desktop which had no expansion room left by the time I got a used 800Mhz Quicksilver G4 tower to replace it which I've got configured as follows:

Zip Bay: The 60Gb 5,400rpm drive it came with originally just for back up purposes
Bay 1: 250Gb 7,200rpm System Drive
Bay 2: 120Gb 7,200rpm Audio Drive
Pioneer DVD Writer
1Gb RAM (2 x 256Mb + 1 x 512Mb)
Airport Card
PCI Slot 2: Ati Radeon 7000
PCI Slot 3: 5 Port USB 2.0 Card + Bluetooth 2.0 USB stick on the cards' internal port

Protools 8.0 is out with a hefty 2Gb memory recommendation, I need Leopard to run it as I'm still using Tiger. That's £83 to start with, once I add the cost of a CPU upgrade (£370 for a dual 1.7Ghz Newertech) and maxing out the RAM, I'm about £200 or so shy of the cost of the current 20" iMac!

I'd need an external Oxford compatable drive case and Apple to keep those firewire ports on the iMac for it to be any use to me and I'm only really gaining 2.5Gb more RAM than my current Mac can handle regardless of the obvious speed gains.

I'd love a mini-tower system like this to sort of fill the gap:

iMac based 2.6 Quad Core with a faster FSB (it's £50 from crucial for a 4Gb iMac kit VS over £100 for the Mac Pro)
4 Memory Slots (8Gb limit, not 4)
2 user upgradable hard drive bays (one in use by system)
integrated Bluetooth + Airport
I honestly don't care about graphics, anything modern is fast enough for me as long it handles dual independent displays.

The current top of the range iMac upgraded to the above specs with a second, user upgradable 2.5" drive bay would be just as useful for audio work too and I'm sure video people would appreciate the extra RAM and second drive option too.

hope this isn't veering off topic, it's sort of "why I'd like a 4 core mac that isn't a Mac pro" but still related ;)

[Ramashalanka]

didn't they just release a new Imac not that long ago.

No, iMacs weren't updated in October. They haven't been updated since April, and the update is overdue according to http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iMac.

[MattInOz]

I do. I do.

Not ridiculous. Would work really well for the work I do.

I maybe strange but I always found the 20' iMac to be more portable than the even the 17' Powerbooks. far more sturdy about the same weight. The 17' would run a little longer without a power point.

[Arcadie]

I wonder why intel has not broken the 3.06 barrier for their products? its like as soon as they hit that with the single cores, they stop increasing speed and started making multi core processors.
I mean they have a 3.2.. but that thing is $1500!

[Eidorian]

I wonder why intel has not broken the 3.06 barrier for their products? its like as soon as they hit that with the single cores, they stop increasing speed and started making multi core processors.
I mean they have a 3.2.. but that thing is $1500!Uhm... (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054&Tpk=E8600)

[Arcadie]

Uhm... (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054&Tpk=E8600)

Hrm.. ive been under a rock the last 12-13 months... so..

But.. i would still like to see something around a 4.0+ besides the single core that was out thats 3.8..

At one point they were increasing the speed by 0.3 - 0.4 GHz ever 5 months or so.

The reason for my wanting this is i heaily use programs that dont take advantage of multiple cores. So a p4 2.0 runs this program almost as well as a core 2 duo 2.0.

[Eidorian]

Hrm.. ive been under a rock the last 12-13 months... so..

- Core 2 Extreme X6800
- Core 2 Extreme QX6850
- Core 2 Extreme QX9650

The E7500 (2.93 GHz) comes out soon as well and I have some hope for an E7600 (3.06 GHz) too. Not to mention overclocking slower processors past 3.0 GHz.

[Umbongo]

Hrm.. ive been under a rock the last 12-13 months... so..

But.. i would still like to see something around a 4.0+ besides the single core that was out thats 3.8..

At one point they were increasing the speed by 0.3 - 0.4 GHz ever 5 months or so.

The reason for my wanting this is i heaily use programs that dont take advantage of multiple cores. So a p4 2.0 runs this program almost as well as a core 2 duo 2.0.

A 2GHz Core 2 Duo is about 3 times as fast as a 2GHz P4 on single threaded applications. Clock speed is only relevent for comparison between processors of the same generation.

If you want to go 4GHz+ you can by overclocking, but it's not worth it for Intel to offer such speeds directly.

[AidenShaw]

A 2GHz Core 2 Duo is about 3 times as fast as a 2GHz P4 on single threaded applications.

A Core 2 is about 80% faster at floating point, and about twice as fast at integer, not three times faster.

A Core i7 is about three times faster at both floating and integer.

http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/cint2006.html
http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/cfp2006.html

3.0 GHz P4 9.85 Int 10.7 FP
3.0 GHz C2 18.9 Int 18.7 FP
2.93 GHz Ci7 27.8 Int 29.5 FP

[Eidorian]

A Core 2 is about 80% faster at floating point, and about twice as fast at integer, not three times faster.

A Core i7 is about three times faster at both floating and integer.

http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/cint2006.html
http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/cfp2006.html

3.0 GHz P4 9.85 Int 10.7 FP
3.0 GHz C2 18.9 Int 18.7 FP
2.93 GHz Ci7 27.8 Int 29.5 FPLovely but as much as I do love i7, I can't see it's benefits for personal computing unless I plan on encoding video 24/7.

8 threads will be nice for P55 and Lynnfield but how much better will it be over current Core 2 Quad owners?

[iMacmatician]

I wonder why intel has not broken the 3.06 barrier for their products? its like as soon as they hit that with the single cores, they stop increasing speed and started making multi core processors.
I mean they have a 3.2.. but that thing is $1500!Because around that point, the heat goes up a lot for a small clock speed increase compared to lower clock speeds, so it's better to go with more cores. Plus higher-end CPUs are more likely to be used on multithreaded applications.

[gazfocus]

Because around that point, the heat goes up a lot for a small clock speed increase compared to lower clock speeds, so it's better to go with more cores. Plus higher-end CPUs are more likely to be used on multithreaded applications.

I'm not sure I totally agree about the heat being an issue. I built myself a high end PC 2 years ago with an Intel E6600 Core 2 Duo and with the same heatsink/fan (and specific thermal paste), I overclocked it from 2.4GHz to 3.4GHz and the temperature remained at ~40 degrees.

[barkmonster]

Couldn't apple trawl out the old "mhz myth" spin they put on the dual 500Mhz G4s they were selling years ago while PCs were zipping along at over 1Ghz?

It wouldn't be anything resembling desperate these days. The improvements promised in Snow Leopard combined with the higher performance of the Ci7 processors on a Ghz for Ghz basis would make a lower clocked system faster across the board.

Some graphs showing the performance difference would dispel any "myths" and they could finally have a line up like this:

"Top" iMac Model 3Ghz Core 2 Quad

"Entry" Tower: 4 RAM slots, 3.2Ghz Core 2 Quad

Mac Pro: Ci7 cpus at the current clock speeds of 2.8 - 3.2Ghz with more RAM as standard, but higher performance

[Umbongo]

Couldn't apple trawl out the old "mhz myth" spin they put on the dual 500Mhz G4s they were selling years ago while PCs were zipping along at over 1Ghz?

It wouldn't be anything resembling desperate these days. The improvements promised in Snow Leopard combined with the higher performance of the Ci7 processors on a Ghz for Ghz basis would make a lower clocked system faster across the board.

Some graphs showing the performance difference would dispel any "myths" and they could finally have a line up like this:

"Top" iMac Model 3Ghz Core 2 Quad

"Entry" Tower: 4 RAM slots, 3.2Ghz Core 2 Quad

Mac Pro: Ci7 cpus at the current clock speeds of 2.8 - 3.2Ghz with more RAM as standard, but higher performance

That results in a confusing product line, something which Apple has gone to great lengths to avoid.

Also a 3.2GHz core 2 Quad costs $1,400 and a similarly performing 2.66GHz i7 costs $284. Not really value for the customer.

[fteoath64]

Put the 2.0 Quad and 1.8 Quad in the new MacMini and we shall all shut up!> How's that for a nice surprise Apple ?:apple::apple:

[earthandtone]

Hello, I am a pro web designer, looking to buy another mac book, I check this site often and it is very useful and most the time correct. I was thinking about buying the new mac book pro. If the mac pro is going to use the quad cores soon, I'd like to wait to buy my computer. Does any one know how long it will be until they adopt a new processor? I doubt it will be soon, they just updated but i need a new laptop soon for work. I need as much power i can get, my job is demanding and I have multiple programs open at once. If any one has an idea when there will be the quad core mac book, please let me know.

[MacAgent84]

Hello, I am a pro web designer, looking to buy another mac book, I check this site often and it is very useful and most the time correct. I was thinking about buying the new mac book pro. If the mac pro is going to use the quad cores soon, I'd like to wait to buy my computer. Does any one know how long it will be until they adopt a new processor? I doubt it will be soon, they just updated but i need a new laptop soon for work. I need as much power i can get, my job is demanding and I have multiple programs open at once. If any one has an idea when there will be the quad core mac book, please let me know.

It could be months, if not a year before they update the MacBook Pro again with the new processor. I would definitely buy one right away and not worry about waiting. The resale value of MacBooks Pros is very good and they usually retain their value over a long period of time. By the time the new processor comes out, you could sale your MacBook Pro and buy the new one by probably only spending a few hundred dollars out of your pocket to cover the cost, and you get to use a great machine in the mean time!