Intel Introduces Core i7 Quad-Core Mobile Processors

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/24/intel-introduces-core-i7-quad-core-mobile-processors/)

Intel yesterday introduced (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090923comp_sm.htm) at its Intel Developer Forum its new line of quad-core Core i7 processors, previously code-named "Clarksfield", for mobile computers. The two processors, manufactured using quad-core dies based on Intel's 45 nm Nehalem microarchitecture, take advantage of Intel's Turbo Boost (http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/index.htm) technology to run at baseline frequencies of 1.6 GHz and 1.73 GHz with the ability ramp to 2.8 GHz and 3.06 GHz respectively when conditions warrant. An "Extreme Edition" processor running at 2.0 GHz and capable of ramping to 3.20 GHz was also released.Intel Corporation introduced its revolutionary Intel Core i7 Mobile Processor and Intel Core i7 Mobile Processor Extreme Edition today, bringing Intel's award-winning and super-fast Nehalem microarchitecture to the mobile market.

These processors in addition to the new Intel PM55 Express Chipset, provide the best laptop experience for intense gaming, digital media, photos, music, business applications and other multi-threaded software that hungers for faster processing speed. The chips also boost overall performance when using several of these applications simultaneously.Apple may be more likely (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/11/core-i7-nehalem-based-macbook-pros-possible-in-q4-2009/), however, to wait until the release of the 32 nm die shrink of the Nehalem microarchitecture, scheduled to appear as the dual-core "Arrandale" processors early next year, to revamp its MacBook Pro line. Arrandale, which was also briefly previewed at the Intel Developer Forum, should offer considerably lower power consumption than Clarksfield processors and better fit into Apple's design constraints for its notebook computers.

Article Link: Intel Introduces Core i7 Quad-Core Mobile Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/24/intel-introduces-core-i7-quad-core-mobile-processors/)

[tibi08]

It's about time Intel got these out of the way, they need to get busy on Arrandale so that I can buy a new Macbook.

Oh and i'll be expecting USB 3.0 also.

[iPoodOverZune]

Bring it on. in time for me when I plan to replace the aging PB G4

[Ambrose Chapel]

i had been holding out for a Clarksfield-powered iMac to replace my G5, but it died earlier this year and I got the currently shipping model. Think Clarksfield will ever make it to the iMac, or does it run too hot, and the iMac will have to wait for Arrandale like the MacBook Pros?

[camomac]

Hopefully we will see bluray early next year too!

[samh004]

Wirelessly posted (iPod touch: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

With GCD these processors will be great. Can't wait.

[tibi08]

i had been holding out for a Clarksfield-powered iMac to replace my G5, but it died earlier this year and I got the currently shipping model. Think Clarksfield will ever make it to the iMac, or does it run too hot, and the iMac will have to wait for Arrandale like the MacBook Pros?

Looking at the recent iMac releases... April 2008, March 2009.... I'm thinking the timing is looking good for an Arrandale refresh in Q1 2010.

[cube]

ExpressCard or FAIL.

[faragher6]

oh man i am really excited about this. the future is coming so fast with these processors.

[mr_matalino]

Have they already released the i7 for desktops? It would be really nice to have one in an iMac!!

[guzhogi]

Looking at the baseline speeds, 2.0 GHz as the fastest, I know some people will wonder why they should get MBPs with these (if they come) when their old MBPs had a higher speed (my current MBP has a 2.5 GHz CPU). However, going from 2 cores -> 4 cores, that should make up for it, especially w/ apps that use Grand Central/OpenCL.

[cube]

Have they already released the i7 for desktops? It would be really nice to have one in an iMac!!

The iMac uses notebook processors.

[vaderhater245]

Arrandale is Dual Core... When will we ever see a Quad Core MBP?

[mgargan1]

I doubt we'll see these in the iMac's. One would think that one of the reasons why we see mobile chips in the iMac line is not only for engineering sake, but for economic reasons as well. Apple probably gets a bigger discount for buying 2 million of the same processor than buying 1 million of version "A" and 1 million of verion "B"

[guzhogi]

i had been holding out for a Clarksfield-powered iMac to replace my G5, but it died earlier this year and I got the currently shipping model. Think Clarksfield will ever make it to the iMac, or does it run too hot, and the iMac will have to wait for Arrandale like the MacBook Pros?

Have they already released the i7 for desktops? It would be really nice to have one in an iMac!!

Not sure about the mobile versions in the iMac. If it's too hot for an iMac, it'll be even more so in a MBP. Would be nice to have the desktop version of this in an iMac, since it IS a desktop computer!

[Eidorian]

There's a chance to see it in the iMac. I still don't think it'll ever see the light of day in an Apple computer though.

[crackbookpro]

Looking at the recent iMac releases... April 2008, March 2009.... I'm thinking the timing is looking good for an Arrandale refresh in Q1 2010.

I'm with you... I'm thinking (& hoping) the same thing.

[mgargan1]

I do wonder; however, if the Turbo Boost is a hardware thing, or does the OS need to recognize it? In other-words, will turbo boost work as intended for OS X?

[Eidorian]

I do wonder; however, if the Turbo Boost is a hardware thing, or does the OS need to recognize it? In other-words, will turbo boost work as intended for OS X?Turbo Boost is in hardware and near instantaneous.

[rtdunham]

ExpressCard or FAIL.

matte screen option for all MBP sizes or FAIL.

[crackbookpro]

matte screen option for all MBP sizes or FAIL.

I wish...

I have eMailed Apple 4 to 5 times in the past year to two years - requesting this!!!

[Dwalls90]

iMac? Probably.

Macbook/MBP? Seriously doubt it .. it's much more draining than Peryn, and would go against Apple's latest campaign of being the greenest notebooks with long battery lives. I sure would pick one up though ..

[sschwar4]

Looking at the baseline speeds, 2.0 GHz as the fastest, I know some people will wonder why they should get MBPs with these (if they come) when their old MBPs had a higher speed (my current MBP has a 2.5 GHz CPU). However, going from 2 cores -> 4 cores, that should make up for it, especially w/ apps that use Grand Central/OpenCL.

Did you read the part about turbo...
Turbo Boost technology to run at baseline frequencies of 1.6 GHz and 1.73 GHz with the ability ramp to 2.8 GHz and 3.06 GHz respectively when conditions warrant. An "Extreme Edition" processor running at 2.0 GHz and capable of ramping to 3.20 GHz.

[sschwar4]

I was hoping for a Quad core in early 2010. Looks like we will have to wait awhile.

[CyberBob859]

Does anybody think that the mobile Core i7 launch makes the rumor of an iMac and MacBook refresh "within weeks" more credible?

[tibi08]

:I wish...

I have eMailed Apple 4 to 5 times in the past year to two years - requesting this!!!

I still can't decide. I have a legacy matt MBP and always feel disappointed with my screen after seeing the glossy :confused:

[ltcol266845]

I wager we see these in the iMac well ahead of them being put in their laptops. At least the quad models...

[tibi08]

Does anybody think that the mobile Core i7 launch makes the rumor of an iMac and MacBook refresh "within weeks" more credible?

No

[Marx55]

The KEY question for apple is:

What is the thermal design power (TDP) of these and future processors?

That is!

[AAPLaday]

Dammit Apple, stick one of these in a MBP even if its just the 17" model, oh and in the new iMacs please :)

[Eric S.]

Oh and i'll be expecting USB 3.0 also.

Why? Got some 3.0 devices you can't use? ;)

Arrandale is Dual Core... When will we ever see a Quad Core MBP?

Dual-core hyperthreaded = 4 virtual cpus. It will look just like a 4-core system.

In a year or so when I start thinking about another Mac laptop, there should be some good choices.

[MattZani]

Get This.

iMac 24" Gets all 3 different versions of the processor.

Apple drops current line of MBP down to MacBook, MacBook is discountinued. Apple Release new MacBook Pro Line in 15" and 17" Sizes, containing these Quadcore chips. (Possibiliy 15" lowest, 17" Mid, no 2Ghz Model)

What would be called the MacBook Line get Dual Core Arrandale CPU's next year.

Top Spec Mac Mini also gets this new chip, at Base Speed.

[tibi08]

The KEY question for apple is:

What is the thermal design power (TDP) of these and future processors?

That is!

Apparently 45W, at least for these two Clarksfields. That compares to only 25W for Arrandale....

Why? Got some 3.0 devices you can't use? ;)

Those 3.0 devices are going to pop up all over the place before you know it :D

[danielwsmithee]

I sure hope that Apple doesn't wait for the Arrandale (especially for the iMac). I'd much rather have a Clarksfield.

The Arrandale is designed to do 1 thing, drive down cost. 1/2 the cores of clarksfield and integrated intel graphics (yuck).

I really think Clarksfield is going to be used in the high end iMacs and MacBook Pros (anything right now that doesn't use the 9400M). The arrandale will be used in the models that currently only use the 9400M.

Clarksfields TDP is 45W, the current Penryn processor used in the MacBook Pro is 35W. Clarksfield includes the Northbridge on the processor which eliminates the northbridge from the logic board. 45W Clarkfield = 35 W Penryn + 10W Northbride. The total power is equivalent the density is higher on the Clarksfield.

[jav6454]

I do wonder; however, if the Turbo Boost is a hardware thing, or does the OS need to recognize it? In other-words, will turbo boost work as intended for OS X?

Turbo boost is in in the die and hardware based (Energy Gates). Core 2 Duos have something similar but it fails because the energy gate isn't effective at turning off cores when unneeded.

Remember the more the cores, the more they have to share the TDP. So Core 2 Duos share, however, the sharing in i7s is more aggressive in the sense that the energy gate will completely shut off an unused core where as in Core 2s the core goes down to almost turned off but it has power going thru it. Hence, the Core 2s don't have Turbo boost, but they do get a small jump.

[danielwsmithee]

Dual-core hyperthreaded = 4 virtual cpus. It will look just like a 4-core system.In that case clarksfield is an 8-core machine. Intel doesn't have any other mobile true quad cores in their roadmap until sandy bridge, the desktop chips are set to come out in 2011, which means the mobile ones won't be until almost 2012. If Apple doesn't find a way to use Clarksfield in their product line the majority of their products will be stuck at duel core for the next 2-3 years.

[Hattig]

Looking at the baseline speeds, 2.0 GHz as the fastest, I know some people will wonder why they should get MBPs with these (if they come) when their old MBPs had a higher speed (my current MBP has a 2.5 GHz CPU). However, going from 2 cores -> 4 cores, that should make up for it, especially w/ apps that use Grand Central/OpenCL.

The 1.7 GHz model runs at 2.8GHz in dual-core operation via Turbo Boost. In addition, it is multi-threaded, so great for Snow Leopard going forward. And 45W TDP, but the chip includes the memory controller and PCI-e controller so it's not so bad compared to a previous generation 35W part.

Perfect for a revamped iMac I would say, apart from the cost of these puppies. It might be enough to make me bite the bullet and get the 24" iMac despite not wanting an all-in-one computer.

Too hungry for a revamped MacBook however. Arrandale for these.

[CrackedButter]

Why? Got some 3.0 devices you can't use? ;)

In a word, future- proofing.

I'm not buying a MBP until I see Quad-core AND USB3.

It doesn't matter if nothing takes advantage of Quad-core yet either, its a long term purchase so you have to think about future usage as well.

[TheBearman]

As for these being in an iMac, I think that will boil down to cost. The numbers I found show the 920 (extreme version) at $1000 per in lots of 1000, and the 820 at about $600 per in lots of 1000. I expect the price would be lower in lots of 1,000,000 but overall this isn't an inexpensive processor. Only time will tell what Apple is planning.

[fueledbyg.com]

Get This.

iMac 24" Gets all 3 different versions of the processor.

Apple drops current line of MBP down to MacBook, MacBook is discountinued. Apple Release new MacBook Pro Line in 15" and 17" Sizes, containing these Quadcore chips. (Possibiliy 15" lowest, 17" Mid, no 2Ghz Model)

What would be called the MacBook Line get Dual Core Arrandale CPU's next year.

Top Spec Mac Mini also gets this new chip, at Base Speed.

Why aren't you submitting info to Mac Rumors?

[diamond.g]

Turbo Boost is in hardware and near instantaneous.
AFAIK Features like that are turned off or on in BIOS/EFI. So we would assume there would be an EFI update to accommodate that functionality.
I sure hope that Apple doesn't wait for the Arrandale (especially for the iMac). I'd much rather have a Clarksfield.

The Arrandale is designed to do 1 thing, drive down cost. 1/2 the cores of clarksfield and integrated intel graphics (yuck).

I really think Clarksfield is going to be used in the high end iMacs and MacBook Pros (anything right now that doesn't use the 9400M). The arrandale will be used in the models that currently only use the 9400M.

Clarksfields TDP is 45W, the current Penryn processor used in the MacBook Pro is 35W. Clarksfield includes the Northbridge on the processor which eliminates the northbridge from the logic board. 45W Clarkfield = 35 W Penryn + 10W Northbride. The total power is equivalent the density is higher on the Clarksfield.Do we know if nVidia has plans on making Mobile Nehalem chipsets?

[Ironduke]

I can see these quads going straight in the iMac for Win!!!!!!!!!

[mdntcallr]

Hopefully we will see bluray early next year too!

yeah for me also... i wont buy a laptop that doesn't have it


and yes to those who think these new chips would be good for imacs and mac mini.... i agree why should the imac just be limited to laptop low power chips??? makes no sense

[kingtj]

I just read the reviews of new laptops using these Core i7 chips (on Gizmodo) and the battery life they get is AWFUL. Apple would be wise to wait for a better CPU to come along, rather than rush to engineer something with this one in it.... (None of the tested systems even reached 2 hours of run-time on battery.)

It *could* go in an iMac ... but Apple would probably rather save the engineering/R&D money putting one together with it, and just use the next chip instead. iMac users aren't really THAT performance-minded that they'd buy up the new model in huge numbers.


Dammit Apple, stick one of these in a MBP even if its just the 17" model, oh and in the new iMacs please :)

[BlizzardBomb]

Quad-core in the iMac late this year or 2010 is almost a definite now. I doubt a significantly new MBP will come out this year though.

[Eidorian]

AFAIK Features like that are turned off or on in BIOS/EFI. So we would assume there would be an EFI update to accommodate that functionality.I don't see a reason to disable it to be honest. It gives me an additional multiplier when overclocking too.

Apple should have had quad cores in the iMac and MacBook Pro since since 2008.

[danielwsmithee]

Perfect for a revamped iMac I would say, apart from the cost of these puppies. I agree the extreme edition at $1000 a piece would probably only be a build to order option with a $500 mark up.

I see the iMac lineup as follows.

October 2009 update
20" iMac Core 2 Duo 9400M
24" iMac Core 2 Duo 9400M
24" iMac Core i7 1.6 GHZ Clarksfield - Discrete graphics
24" iMac Core i7 1.73 Ghz Clarksfield - Discrete graphics
- BTO - 2.0 Ghz Clarksfield
- BTO - Improved Graphics

Then in march 2010
20" iMac Arrandale
24" iMac Arrandale
24" iMac Core i7 1.73 GHZ Clarksfield - Discrete graphics
24" iMac Core i7 2.0 Ghz Clarksfield - Discrete graphics
- BTO - intel's next extreme edition (assuming clarksfield prices come down and new EE processor introduced).
- BTO - Improved Graphics

[danielwsmithee]

Do we know if nVidia has plans on making Mobile Nehalem chipsets? There is a massive lawsuit going on right now between intel and nVidia about that. You can bet it won't be resolved for at least a year...

[Eidorian]

There is a massive lawsuit going on right now between intel and nVidia about that. You can bet it won't be resolved for at least a year...MCP99 anyone?

[alent1234]

Does anybody think that the mobile Core i7 launch makes the rumor of an iMac and MacBook refresh "within weeks" more credible?


maybe, but there was a story a week ago that Intel has already started producing 32nm CPU's for launch next year

[diamond.g]

I don't see a reason to disable it to be honest. It gives me an additional multiplier when overclocking too.

Apple should have had quad cores in the iMac and MacBook Pro since since 2008.

Me either, but I have seen stuff like that on my servers disabled out of the box (not exactly the same, but you get my point).

I could see Apple using these chips in their iMacs and waiting till Arrendale for the mobile systems. I could also see Apple waiting till Arrendale then upgrading their entire consumer lineup with nehalem all at once.
MCP99 anyone?

Good call. It will be interesting to see how that all pans out.

[diamond.g]

delete me...

[Eidorian]

Me either, but I have seen stuff like that on my servers disabled out of the box (not exactly the same, but you get my point).True, Sony has disabled Intel VT on their computers for no apparent reason.

I could see Apple using these chips in their iMacs and waiting till Arrendale for the mobile systems. I could also see Apple waiting till Arrendale then upgrading their entire consumer lineup with nehalem all at once.There are only a handful of Arrandale chips. There's going to be even less differentiation right now. Apple NEEDS to put Clarksfield in the iMac or it's going to be even more crippled compared to other desktops.

[alent1234]

I just read the reviews of new laptops using these Core i7 chips (on Gizmodo) and the battery life they get is AWFUL. Apple would be wise to wait for a better CPU to come along, rather than rush to engineer something with this one in it.... (None of the tested systems even reached 2 hours of run-time on battery.)

It *could* go in an iMac ... but Apple would probably rather save the engineering/R&D money putting one together with it, and just use the next chip instead. iMac users aren't really THAT performance-minded that they'd buy up the new model in huge numbers.

those are brand X laptops they used for testing. i have a 2 year old HP laptop that still gets 2 hours on battery. down from 3 hours when it was new.

my 5 year old dell inspiron that i bought with an upgraded battery would push 4 hours battery life when it was new.

unlike Apple, with PC's you get a nice variety of options including battery choices. since most new laptops these days leave the home about as much as SUV's drive offroad most people don't care to buy the better batteries

[pimentoLoaf]

I think I'll wait a few years until the 8-core 20" laptops are introduced. :D

[Hattig]

There is a massive lawsuit going on right now between intel and nVidia about that. You can bet it won't be resolved for at least a year...

Intel put a PCI-e port on the processors however.

To which NVIDIA will connect their chipset, even though it was "intended" to be for a GPU only.

As a PCI-e compliant device, there is nothing Intel will be able to do.

However maybe the CPU won't work without a DMI device also attached to the CPU, which could be a problem, as NVIDIA don't have a DMI license, despite the fact that DMI is PCI-e with a couple of Intel proprietary features.

[AAPLaday]

Im not going to update my computer till i get one of these new processors in it. I love OS X since i switched in Jan 08 but now that i have seen the info on these new chips i want one :D Windows 7 coming out soon and it looks like it going to be a big success for Microsoft so Apple would be wise to include them sooner rather than later.

[danielwsmithee]

HP already announced they are putting Clarksfield in their MacBook Pro Clone (Envy 15). I really hope Apple finds a way to not be left dual core age.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/enhanced/i7mobile/gallery/images/HPEnvy2_prev.jpg

[jnc]

Quad Core SSD Arrandale 15" AG with ExpressCard in January please!

[danielwsmithee]

Quad Core SSD Arrandale 15" AG with ExpressCard in January please!There is no such thing. Arrandale is dual-core always will be.

[thatdarnfish]

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/24/apple_ready_and_waiting_with_redesigned_imac_line.html

...as early as next week.

[Eidorian]

HP already announced they are putting Clarksfield in their MacBook Pro Clone (Envy 15). I really hope Apple finds a way to not be left dual core age.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/enhanced/i7mobile/gallery/images/HPEnvy2_prev.jpgHP is doing a good job on the hardware and looks of those new Envy models.

[FoxyKaye]

I'm suspicious of Apple moving any quad-core processor into the iMac lineup in the next year. Something tells me they'll opt for the "extreme" dual-core versions at the very most. It just seems too expensive for Apple's taste, even if the iMac is rightly a desktop machine.

We were all having this same conversation back in 2005 about the dual-core G5 processors making their way into the iMacs, which of course never happened (although this may have been more because of the timing of dual-core PPC chips and the Intel switch).

[Maserati7200]

All of this talk is making me excited for the future. I'm going to upgrade my May 2007 white mac book in the fall of 2011. I'm already satisfied with the performance of my MacBook. Since Mac OSX is getting a smaller footprint, and by the time I get my next MacBook/Pro with these processors and USB 3, it's gonna be mind blowingly fast!

[jmcguckin]

now seriously, what kill-joy(s) gave this article a Negative rating? I swear, some people must just get a rise out of being pessimists...

as for the processors, I've been looking forward to these for forever (and from what I've read, they definitely don't disappoint performance-wise), though I have a feeling that that's all I'll be able to do for now considering how long it usually takes Apple to implement the latest processors into their lineup... besides, I won't even considering buying a new notebook until Apple have released a 13/15" version with at least a 2.8GHz i7, relatively affordably-priced 256/512GB SSD (no more than $250-300 to upgrade from a HDD), USB 3, 1600MHz DDR3 RAM (or faster), and 802.11n final. and a higher-resolution/matte screen option would be nice (13"- 1440x900/15"- 1680x1050), though I'm fairly content with the resolution options available at the moment.

so ya, I'll be waiting for awhile... :).

[danielwsmithee]

I'm suspicious of Apple moving any quad-core processor into the iMac lineup in the next year. Something tells me they'll opt for the "extreme" dual-core versions at the very most. The just doesn't make that much sense. The current extreme dual core version runs at 3.06 GHZ and costs $851. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35431

The new clarksfield 1.7 Ghz boosts to 2.8 Ghz in a 2 core situation, costs $350 less, and provides tons better performance.

On and also notice the TDP numbers, the current extreme edition (available already in the iMac) has a TDP of 44W. The new Clarkfield processor has a TDP of 45W. Sounds like pretty solid evidence that the new iMac should have a Core i7.

[Sehnsucht]

I do wonder; however, if the Turbo Boost is a hardware thing, or does the OS need to recognize it? In other-words, will turbo boost work as intended for OS X?

Yes, it's already in use in the Nehalem Mac Pro.

[flottenheimer]

Arrandale MacBook Pro. Yum. Yum.

[wizard]

i had been holding out for a Clarksfield-powered iMac to replace my G5, but it died earlier this year and I got the currently shipping model. Think Clarksfield will ever make it to the iMac, or does it run too hot, and the iMac will have to wait for Arrandale like the MacBook Pros?

Clarksfield is almost the ideal processor for lower end iMacs. I would expect new iMacs with this processor in the next few weeks. I'm actually surprised the article missed this application for the processor.


Dave

[shanmugam]

I think we are jumping guns here,

i take 65W Quad core desktop or lower clocked 55W Quad Core desktop CPUs...

These mobile CPUs are way to expensive to apple's liking, if Core i7 Mobile quad core coming then it will be only in the the top two systems with $1799 and $2199, that would be ironic.

Bring some form of Core i5 under clocked (read 55Watts) desktop quads please apple? 32nm might help this also, but that would mean they will be ready Q12010...

1.6/1.73/2.0 Ghz Mobile Core i7 Priced $364/$546/$1054 bit expensive

[danielwsmithee]

Clarksfield is almost the ideal processor for lower end iMacs. I think you meant higher end.

[Bigabouli]

HP already announced they are putting Clarksfield in their MacBook Pro Clone (Envy 15). I really hope Apple finds a way to not be left dual core age.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/enhanced/i7mobile/gallery/images/HPEnvy2_prev.jpg

Wow, how can HP get away with a design like that? Then again, i wish Apple would update the MBP to those specs.

Dell also has a new Alienware M15x using these processors.
See: http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/alienware-m15x?c=au&l=en&s=dhs&cs=audhs1&ref=homepg

The price jump from the 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz is going on $600 AUD or around $500 USD, and a whopping $1650AUD for the 2.0GHz. Not sure if apple will be able to update imacs and reduce prices just yet.

[jayducharme]

In a word, future- proofing..

Well, good luck with that. I've given up on the idea. To me, the future is just 1-3 years away. It's become like trading in a car. I use it until I need something else. Then I sell the old one and put that money toward a new version. There's simply no way to keep up. I got a MacPro for my animation and video work, but I'm finding it's overkill for my needs. A quad-core iMac would take up a lot less space and probably get the job done just fine.

[danielwsmithee]

These mobile CPUs are way to expensive to apple's liking, if Core i7 Mobile quad core coming then it will be only in the the top two systems with $1799 and $2199, that would be ironic.They current iMac has similar processor price points.

Current Core 2 Duo Mobile prices.
2.8 - $316
2.93 - $530
3.06 - $851

Clarkfield i7 Prices
1.6 - $364
1.73 - $546
2.0 - $1054

[shanmugam]

They current iMac has similar processor price points.

Current Core 2 Duo Mobile prices.
2.8 - $316
2.93 - $530
3.06 - $851

Clarkfield i7 Prices
1.6 - $364
1.73 - $546
2.0 - $1054

the current iMac CPUs are custom designed and they have E in front of their number and not the T (which are listed in the intel price list), i doubt apple paying that much $$$

can some one elaborate what socket type used in current iMacs?

[RazHyena]

It's time to play catch-up, Apple. This is stuff you should have been doing back in 2008.

...and we're still waiting for blu-ray. :mad:

[wizard]

I think you meant higher end.

The title says it all! The 24" iMac needs a full blown desktop processor running at 3.4 GHz. It is all about gap filling, though I'd rather that gap was filled with an XMac.

By the way I've seen lots of hand wringing from others about clock rate and power. DO NOT dismiss the processors based on this info or early thermal/battery life reports. There are a number of things to consider:

1.
These processors are a lot faster than Core 2 clock for clock. That of course depends upon many specifics but a common figure is 20%.
2.
The thermal issue is real but maybe not what many think. There is reasonable potential that the overall chipset load isn't that much worst than Core 2. This due to much of the needed chipset functionality being built in. What is a huge problem now is that we have a much larger point load. That is more heat coming from a single chip. This is a huge problem in a laptop and could significantly impact the ability to leverage Turbo Boost. Maybe Apple will throw some of the new ceramic or carbon fiber tech at the issue.
3.
Do not put to much faith into the current battery time figures. Right now we don't know if the OS being used is actually aware of the chip and how to manage it.

I just needed to pass these points along. It may take Apple awhile but I think they could deliver a high performance 17" model with this processor. The trick is heat management which might lead to a thicker MBP. On the iMac this is no problem at all.



Dave

[jgbhardy]

Seeing as the almighty Apple likes to use mobile processors in their iMacs I think we will see this in the iMac before any of the Laptop's. Maybe even the new ones...:D

[danielwsmithee]

The title says it all! The 24" iMac needs a full blown desktop processor running at 3.4 GHz. Not going to happen. Though I agree with you, I would love to see Apple properly fill the Desktop i7 gap.

The top of the line iMac uses a 44W TDP part. The desktop i7 chips start at 95W and go up from there to 130W. That is more then double the amount of power for even the lowest specified part.

I'd love to see Apple drop the prices on the iMac substantially, stick with dual-core and keep getting thinner/sleeker. Then introduce a new Mac based on the desktop i7 chips and get rid of the Mac Pro. Then you would have.

iMac/mini - Dual Core $500-1500
xMac/Mac - Quad Core i7 $1500-$2500
Mac Pro - Dual Quad Core Xeon $2500+

[blackhand1001]

Why? Got some 3.0 devices you can't use? ;)



Dual-core hyperthreaded = 4 virtual cpus. It will look just like a 4-core system.

In a year or so when I start thinking about another Mac laptop, there should be some good choices.

Yeah so I guess all those pentium 4 ht's that I am sure many people here bashed during the g5 era were dual cores too right.

[shanmugam]

1)
Intel® CoreTM2 Quad processor Low Power Desktop (LGA 775)
Q9550S (12M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm) $320
Q9505S (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm) $277
Q9400S (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm)$245
Q8400S (4M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm)$213

this line of CPUs better in Watts/Heat and $$$
but LGA775 is going to EOL soon

2)
Intel® CoreTM i5 processor Desktop (LGA 1156)
i5-750 (8M L3 cache, 4 Cores,4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 45nm) $196

Custom Core i5 CPUs - 65 Watts - socket 1156 just started has another 3 to 5 years

3)
Intel® CoreTMi7 processor Extreme Edition Mobile (FCPGA8)
i7-920XM (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.00 GHz) - $1,054

Intel® CoreTMi7 processor Mobile (FCPGA8)
i7-820QM (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 1.73 GHz) - $546
i7-720QM (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 1.60 GHz) - $364

Mobile Core i7 are expensive - socket m989 has started has another 3 to 5 years life

well, another three to four weeks we will know what apple decides!

[true777]

:

I still can't decide. I have a legacy matt MBP and always feel disappointed with my screen after seeing the glossy :confused:

If it's legacy matte it's not the LED-backlit kind. The LED-backlit anti-glare screen is gorgeous.

[true777]

iMac = i5/i7 (Clarksfield) - 2009
MacBook Pro = Arrandale - 2010

[iMacmatician]

Arrandale is Dual Core... When will we ever see a Quad Core MBP?My estimate is 2011.

If Apple doesn't find a way to use Clarksfield in their product line the majority of their products will be stuck at duel core for the next 2-3 years.Precisely. I think we will be waiting a long time for quad-core on the MacBook, Mac mini, and MacBook Air.

I think we are jumping guns here,

i take 65W Quad core desktop or lower clocked 55W Quad Core desktop CPUs...

These mobile CPUs are way to expensive to apple's liking, if Core i7 Mobile quad core coming then it will be only in the the top two systems with $1799 and $2199, that would be ironic.

Bring some form of Core i5 under clocked (read 55Watts) desktop quads please apple? 32nm might help this also, but that would mean they will be ready Q12010...

1.6/1.73/2.0 Ghz Mobile Core i7 Priced $364/$546/$1054 bit expensiveSame sort of speculation happened before the last update...remember how that turned out. I like these ideas (and I'm a proponent of them), but I don't think it's likely.

[Joshindc]

I'm confused...Why would one be looking forward to an Arrandale intel chip in 2010 if it's dual-core? We have dual-core MB pros now...isn't the Clarksdale more exciting? And also, what is 'turbo-boost' exactly? Why keep the quad processors running at say a 1.7 clock speed and then be able to boost to 2.8? Shouldn't there be a baseline of about 2.0 Ghz since thats what the current core 2 duos run at in the worst of those chips?

[CQd44]

still loving my quad core. But I don't know that I can't overclock infinitely :[

[iMacmatician]

I'm confused...Why would one be looking forward to an Arrandale intel chip in 2010 if it's dual-core? We have dual-core MB pros now...isn't the Clarksdale more exciting? Many people don't think the MacBook Pros will get Clarksfield because of heat / low clock speeds / update "cycle" / etc. Arrandale is still an update over the existing Penryn CPUs.

And also, what is 'turbo-boost' exactly? Turbo Boost allows individual cores to clock up higher than their base clock speed when only those cores are being used, while still being within their TDP (in this case 45 W).

Why keep the quad processors running at say a 1.7 clock speed and then be able to boost to 2.8? Shouldn't there be a baseline of about 2.0 Ghz since thats what the current core 2 duos run at in the worst of those chips?All 4 cores at 2.8 GHz would generate too much heat.

[wackymacky]

It's about time Intel got these out of the way, they need to get busy on Arrandale so that I can buy a new Macbook.

Oh and i'll be expecting USB 3.0 also.

Yep,

I'llme wating to next year to upgrade hopfully to get USB 3.

[WestonHarvey1]

Yeah so I guess all those pentium 4 ht's that I am sure many people here bashed during the g5 era were dual cores too right.

CPU fanboyism is odd enough, but holding on to old CPU fanboy grudges is weirder. It's like being bitter about someone making fun of you for having an AMD 80286, even though you so totally schooled them on Prince of Persia with the extra 0.5 MHz.

[Eidorian]

CPU fanboyism is odd enough, but holding on to old CPU fanboy grudges is weirder. It's like being bitter about someone making fun of you for having an AMD 80286, even though you so totally schooled them on Prince of Persia with the extra 0.5 MHz.Core 2 is pretty solid today unless you're encoding video or rendering. If it's gaming then you're looking at the video card anyways.

[AidenShaw]

Core 2 is pretty solid today unless you're encoding video or rendering. If it's gaming then you're looking at the video card anyways.

I do a lot of virtual machine stuff with Hyper-V and VMware - and the Nehalem really screams compared to Core 2 (and I have the Core 2 Quad Extreme).

[Eidorian]

I do a lot of virtual machine stuff with Hyper-V and VMware - and the Nehalem really screams compared to Core 2 (and I have the Core 2 Quad Extreme).The performance gains from nested paging alone were VERY noticeable on VMs.

Core 2 is seriously budget computer stuff now and for low power notebooks. Apple is selling a product at a premium price but without the hardware to back it up. With a lackluster Snow Leopard the more knowledgeable userbase is going to really question buying a new Mac. The older user base is nearly bled dry.

Apple can probably live off of switchers but with Windows 7 lurking and nothing of significance on the Apple side I can't recommend anything but an Apple notebook. Even then it's going to be the Macbook.

[AidenShaw]

Apple can probably live off of switchers but with Windows 7 lurking and nothing of significance on the Apple side I can't recommend anything but an Apple notebook. Even then it's going to be the Macbook.

Unless someone wants an ExpressCard slot, or more that N USB ports, or a docking station, or an industry standard external monitor connector, or....

And yes, Windows 7 is going to make things very interesting.... When Apple loses whatever advantage they had in the OS UI, and bundle it with over-priced under-spec'd computers -- switching *from* Apple may be the next wave....

[Eidorian]

Unless someone wants an ExpressCard slot, or more that N USB ports, or a docking station, or an industry standard external monitor connector, or....Mini-Display Port is making a showing on ATI's 5870/5850 with the Eyefinity system. 6 merged monitors look great if you can afford it.

Otherwise if it's a notebook the new HP Envy 15/17" look very nice and are sporting Clarksfield.

[MattInOz]

Intel put a PCI-e port on the processors however.

To which NVIDIA will connect their chipset, even though it was "intended" to be for a GPU only.

As a PCI-e compliant device, there is nothing Intel will be able to do.

However maybe the CPU won't work without a DMI device also attached to the CPU, which could be a problem, as NVIDIA don't have a DMI license, despite the fact that DMI is PCI-e with a couple of Intel proprietary features.

I'm sure I read on Ars or Slashdot that that had had been resolved and they had come to terms for a new agreement on DMI. It was only a few weeks ago. But google isn't finding it?!?!.

Apple has a couple of options the i7 has the PCIe which could spin out the nVidia graphics and build without the need for DMI. The other Apple designs their Own DMI chip with support for all the stuff they want like custom trackpad driver they use for MacBooks. Then get Intel or someone intel is willing to let Fab the DMI chip.


They current iMac has similar processor price points.

Current Core 2 Duo Mobile prices.
2.8 - $316
2.93 - $530
3.06 - $851

Clarkfield i7 Prices
1.6 - $364
1.73 - $546
2.0 - $1054

I could see Apple taking this time to split the iMac Family, into iMac and iMac Pro. One gets thinner and cheaper the other more powerful.

Worked for the iPod/nano. and the Powerbook.
They do have the first clear line in the sand to draw and the market share to make it worth while.

[gnomeisland]

Get This.

iMac 24" Gets all 3 different versions of the processor.

Apple drops current line of MBP down to MacBook, MacBook is discountinued. Apple Release new MacBook Pro Line in 15" and 17" Sizes, containing these Quadcore chips. (Possibiliy 15" lowest, 17" Mid, no 2Ghz Model)

What would be called the MacBook Line get Dual Core Arrandale CPU's next year.

Top Spec Mac Mini also gets this new chip, at Base Speed.

nice thought but I doubt it. It would cannibalize Apple's well groomed, minimalism product lineup. There would be overlap and *gasp* options in the line up you are suggesting!

Not that I am really in market personally but I will be very disappointed if the new iMacs are released with dual core Core 2 Proc and TN screens at the 24" no matter how "cheap" they become.

BTW, if you ever convince Apple to stick one of those chips in mini let me know and I'll pick up two!

[Xibalba]

There's a chance to see it in the iMac. I still don't think it'll ever see the light of day in an Apple computer though.

agree. the new imac revision is expected too soon for these chips and then i would assume that apple would use the smaller die in the next set of imac revisions...ie quad core

[Chimpy]

This should be interesting to see if Apple goes along with this line...

[MattInOz]

agree. the new imac revision is expected too soon for these chips and then i would assume that apple would use the smaller die in the next set of imac revisions...ie quad core

You make it sound like Apple only saw these chips today when the press release came out and hasn't had months in not years of prior knowledge, and prototypes to play with to have something ready for the market next week or so.

For all we know this may have been the part of intels roadmap that convinced Apple to switch. Use the cores for the transition then we'll have these puppies ready for when you get the software in order.

[andy721]

I have to say I come close to an i7 processor there's not a big boost in it's technology just another money making processor by intel.

[Bubba Satori]

Have they already released the i7 for desktops? It would be really nice to have one in an iMac!!

Yeah, last year.

[Bubba Satori]

I just read the reviews of new laptops using these Core i7 chips (on Gizmodo) and the battery life they get is AWFUL. Apple would be wise to wait for a better CPU to come along, rather than rush to engineer something with this one in it.... (None of the tested systems even reached 2 hours of run-time on battery.)

It *could* go in an iMac ... but Apple would probably rather save the engineering/R&D money putting one together with it, and just use the next chip instead. iMac users aren't really THAT performance-minded that they'd buy up the new model in huge numbers.

Those have desktop i7s. These new cpus are mobile chips.

[Bubba Satori]

HP is doing a good job on the hardware and looks of those new Envy models.

It's our best seller. The 1285DX quad with the ATI 4000 series vid card is a great pc for $1200. Hopefully Apple will come up with something as well configured soon.

[Bubba Satori]

My estimate is 2011.

Precisely. I think we will be waiting a long time for quad-core on the MacBook, Mac mini, and MacBook Air.

Same sort of speculation happened before the last update...remember how that turned out. I like these ideas (and I'm a proponent of them), but I don't think it's likely.

Three years later than PCs. :eek: That's even longer than usual for Apple. Unpossible.

[LagunaSol]

Remember the days when Intel would announce a new chip and simultaneously announce that the new chip would first ship in some model of Mac?

I miss those days.

[iMaggot]

I think Alienware is already using this i7 on there gaming laptop.
i7 is a badass CPU

[Akira1980]

i7 Laptops are taking over...

http://laptoping.com/category/laptop-news/

[MorphingDragon]

And we will be getting these... when? :rolleyes:

[penini]

I'm just about ready to cave in and buy a Core2Duo MBP, as I think even IF Apple releases some Core i7 MBPs by year's end they may not be that much faster than a top of the line MBP 3.06 GHz. Apple traditionally doles out their faster processor Macs in a very specific timeline strategy, leaving buyers wanting more over time. It's like do NOT give buyers our best products until late in the cycle, make buyers regret not getting the fastest latest and greatest offerings and keep the whole thing hushed. It's what most sales is all about. Look at how the HDTV industry doles out their "upgrades". Apple and other manufacturers are experts at getting fans (of which I am one) to upgrade over small incremental speed bumps, etc. The world is addicted to stats, however, insignificant as they may be. I've even heard some gal telling her boyfriend the other day that she regretted not getting the next model up... She seemed to be bothered that her bottom white MacBook wasn't quite as desirable as the next model up. Just saying...

[pr5owner]

I have to say I come close to an i7 processor there's not a big boost in it's technology just another money making processor by intel.

boost in tech?

CLOCK FOR CLOCK its 27% faster

[Eidorian]

It's our best seller. The 1285DX quad with the ATI 4000 series vid card is a great pc for $1200. Hopefully Apple will come up with something as well configured soon.$999 i7 720QM Dell Studio 15 with a Mobility Radeon HD 4570 looks very nice. :eek:

[blackhand1001]

CPU fanboyism is odd enough, but holding on to old CPU fanboy grudges is weirder. It's like being bitter about someone making fun of you for having an AMD 80286, even though you so totally schooled them on Prince of Persia with the extra 0.5 MHz.

Actually I had an Athlon 64 during that time.

[pr5owner]

$999 i7 720QM Dell Studio 15 with a Mobility Radeon HD 4570 looks very nice. :eek:

or you could build your own for less than $750 and it will be faster than the dell, a 4870 is only $140

[Eidorian]

or you could build your own for less than $750 and it will be faster than the dell, a 4870 is only $140Build your own notebook? I've seen barebones kits but they get expensive due to the low demand on mobile video cards and processors.

[Azmordean]

I saw the stats for the HP Envy 15 online:


"The Envy 15 however doesn’t lack anything. In fact, it has pretty much everything a user would want in a high-end notebook: a Core i7 CPU, up to 16GB of DDR3 RAM, room for two SSDs, a 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4830 GPU, 15.6-inch LED backlit display, a VGA webcam with nightvision, and all of this in a package that’s 1-inch thin and only weighs 5.18-pounds."

If this is correct, HP may well be delivering a knockout punch here, particularly if Apple is peddling Core 2 Duos in it's MBPs still. Sure, some people will never leave OS X... but if those Envy stats are correct and it's at the same price point (or more likely, a bit cheaper) than the MBP, I wouldn't recommend a MBP to anyone really.

[Dontdothat317]

If Apple decides to put a DUAL-CORE Arrandale Nehalem chip in a Macbook PRO, at the current price tag of 2000$ +, they will be falling way behind. Available oct 15 is the HP Envy 15. Core i7 Clarksfield, 16GB ram max capacity DDR3, Radeon HD 4830. 1799 USD.

I think with the 32nm die shirnk, instead of going with the dual-core Arrandale, we will see quad-core 32nm chips in the MBPs. Especially if the previous speculations on 45W TDP for current Clarksfields are correct, thus a fair conservative guess would put the TDP for a 32nm shrink at around 35-40W, fairly close to the current Penryn MBPs.

http://apcmag.com/hp-envy-notebooks-revealed.htm

Taken directly from HP's News Release on the Envy 13 and Envy 15.
"This lean, mean, dream machine is HP’s fastest consumer notebook. The full metal case features a sleek, subtly crafted, laser-etched metal design on the lid that is repeated on the palmrest. The magnesium alloy casing provides lightweight durability in a 1-inch thin, 5.18-pound package"

So if HP can get a Clarksfield Core i7-720 and 16GB of RAM support in a laptop boasting nearly the same weight and dimensions as the current MBP, why does it take apple 4-6 months longer to put yet another dual core in their MBP which has a significantly higher price tag?
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2009/090915xc.html

[jnc]

So if HP can get a Clarksfield Core i7-720 and 16GB of RAM support in a laptop boasting nearly the same weight and dimensions as the current MBP, why does it take apple 4-6 months longer to put yet another dual core in their MBP which has a significantly higher price tag?
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2009/090915xc.html

With full HD screen, no less. And lighter than the MBP... weird

[twoodcc]

hey the i7 desktop chips are really great, so i really hope that the mobile chips will be just as good

[Maserati7200]

If Apple decides to put a DUAL-CORE Arrandale Nehalem chip in a Macbook PRO, at the current price tag of 2000$ +, they will be falling way behind. Available oct 15 is the HP Envy 15. Core i7 Clarksfield, 16GB ram max capacity DDR3, Radeon HD 4830. 1799 USD.

I think with the 32nm die shirnk, instead of going with the dual-core Arrandale, we will see quad-core 32nm chips in the MBPs. Especially if the previous speculations on 45W TDP for current Clarksfields are correct, thus a fair conservative guess would put the TDP for a 32nm shrink at around 35-40W, fairly close to the current Penryn MBPs.

http://apcmag.com/hp-envy-notebooks-revealed.htm

Taken directly from HP's News Release on the Envy 13 and Envy 15.
"This lean, mean, dream machine is HP’s fastest consumer notebook. The full metal case features a sleek, subtly crafted, laser-etched metal design on the lid that is repeated on the palmrest. The magnesium alloy casing provides lightweight durability in a 1-inch thin, 5.18-pound package"

So if HP can get a Clarksfield Core i7-720 and 16GB of RAM support in a laptop boasting nearly the same weight and dimensions as the current MBP, why does it take apple 4-6 months longer to put yet another dual core in their MBP which has a significantly higher price tag?
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2009/090915xc.html

Whoa.. :eek:

[jnc]

Whoa.. :eek:

I'm seriously impressed by that. hackintosh time? :o I'll hold out til January, but then...

[iMacmatician]

I saw the stats for the HP Envy 15 online:


"The Envy 15 however doesn’t lack anything. In fact, it has pretty much everything a user would want in a high-end notebook: a Core i7 CPU, up to 16GB of DDR3 RAM, room for two SSDs, a 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4830 GPU, 15.6-inch LED backlit display, a VGA webcam with nightvision, and all of this in a package that’s 1-inch thin and only weighs 5.18-pounds.":eek: …no way… :eek:

That is insane. And LIGHTER than the MacBook Pro?

The other thing this tells me is what removing the optical drive can do to a laptop. If the optical drive stayed in the Envy 15, I doubt it would have those specs. Drop the optical drive Apple.

[subsonix]

Any speculations about wheter this new cpu might make it to the new rumored imacs? The way I see it, power usage should be less of a concern in a computer that does not operate on battery.

[Maserati7200]

Any speculations about wheter this new cpu might make it to the new rumored imacs? The way I see it, power usage should be less of a concern in a computer that does not operate on battery.

I would surely hope so.

[AidenShaw]

I would surely hope so.

Sadly, if recent history has any bearing, you're more likely to see an Atom CPU in an Imac that's 2mm thinner than the current one - rather than seeing a capable CPU.

THIN! THIN! THIN! Never mind usability.

[Maserati7200]

Sadly, if recent history has any bearing, you're more likely to see an Atom CPU in an Imac that's 2mm thinner than the current one - rather than seeing a capable CPU.

THIN! THIN! THIN! Never mind usability.

If the iMac is really headed in that direction, then the only viable option for me would be a Mac Pro, overkill, but better than underkill. I like the form factor of the iMac, and the power of it. I wouldn't mind if it were to be slightly thicker in favor of power. I really don't need a Mac Pro, an iMac with more power would be ideal.

[AidenShaw]

Sadly, if recent history has any bearing, you're more likely to see an Atom CPU in an Imac that's 2mm thinner than the current one - rather than seeing a capable CPU.

Actually, an Atom-ic Imac isn't a bad idea per se.

It would be interesting for people looking for the "greenest" light duty computer.

It wouldn't be interesting for anyone doing any CPU intensive applications.

If Apple believed in choice, then both an Atom-ic Imac and a quad core Nehalem Imac could be in the lineup.

But please, none of them with chins.

[10THzMac]

If Apple do not get their act together and ship a quad core Macbook Pro soon I will just give up and get the Alienware. Now in 15in with a choice of 3 quad processor speeds and up to 8M RAM. I have been using Macs since 1984 and despair of their engineers now worrying more about making laptops out of one piece of metal than delivering power. The Alien' also has a newer GPU. I hope Apple sack the fashionistas and hire more real engineers.

[barkmonster]

Given that memory bandwidth halves every time the number of cores double, wouldn't it makes sense for Apple to use Hyper threading and go with an intentionally 2 core + 2 hyperthreading configuration?

They'd end up with something like this which a lot of people would be very happy about: -

3 or 6 RAM slots to accommodate DDR3 for maximum bandwidth (I've seen nearly 20Gb/s in PC Core i7 benchmarks).

2 core + hyper threading enabled by default for maximum bandwidth/clock speed.

Apple could state the speed as up to 2.8Ghz, up to 3.06Ghz etc and just use some benchmarking etc... to show the speeds of the systems. The Mhz Myth is pretty much irrelevant to people these days.

[DoFoT9]

*stuff*

Apple could state the speed as up to 2.8Ghz, up to 3.06Ghz etc and just use some benchmarking etc... to show the speeds of the systems. The Mhz Myth is pretty much irrelevant to people these days.

pfft maybe for those of us in the know! literally 95% of people i know have no idea about computers - they think that a P4 3.2GHz CPU is better then a 2.0GHz dual core. i think there should be a mandatory test result with each computer sold, that would make it much easier for the...uhh... less informed ;)

care to explain how memory bandwidth halves with every double core? what if the core isnt currently being used, does that open up 100% bandwidth for the other cores, or are the bandwidths reserved?

[barkmonster]

pfft maybe for those of us in the know! literally 95% of people i know have no idea about computers - they think that a P4 3.2GHz CPU is better then a 2.0GHz dual core. i think there should be a mandatory test result with each computer sold, that would make it much easier for the...uhh... less informed ;)

care to explain how memory bandwidth halves with every double core? what if the core isnt currently being used, does that open up 100% bandwidth for the other cores, or are the bandwidths reserved?

I don't know precisely how the Core i7 distributes clock speed and bandwidth. If it literally switches off 1 core to clock up the remaining 3, then it's a hell of lot more complicated than the explanation of Mac Pro bandwidth in Quad and 8-Core systems below...

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html

"Memory bandwidth is inadequate for 8-cores. It's already a limiting factor with the current quad-core 3.0 GHz Mac Pro. Memory copy speed is at best 2.9GB/sec on the Mac Pro, in spite of Apple's highly misleading claims of 21.3 GB/sec (maximum processor bandwidth of up to 21.3 GB/s. bandwidth is a bit more than double the memory copy speed). That's a measly 700MB/sec per core on a quad-core machine, and only 350MB/sec per core on an octa-core machine. By comparison, a 6-drive hard disk RAID array can easily perform at over 400MB/sec!"

Something to look forward to if it related to the performance of the new mobile cores in the slightest...

2.66Ghz Core i7 920 "Hackintosh" with 6Gb of 667Mhz DDR3: - Geekbench Score 7598

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig1_YJeze18

2.66Ghz Core i7 920 "Hackintosh" @ 3.61Ghz with 12Gb of 1600Mhz DDR3: - Geekbench Score 11801

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xOYB-fYcZM&feature=fvw

[NintendoFan]

I don't know precisely how the Core i7 distributes clock speed and bandwidth. If it literally switches off 1 core to clock up the remaining 3, then it's a hell of lot more complicated than the explanation of Mac Pro bandwidth in Quad and 8-Core systems below...

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html


Here is a good explanation: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=4

[barkmonster]

Here is a good explanation: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=4

Excellent article. This page shows that even with 4 cores being used, there's still over 17Gb/s of bandwidth available but based on the "per core" analysis of barefeats, that would make it even less than the Mac Pro gets wouldn't it?

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=7

[dean4tech]

In terms of performance,interrogating an Corei7 processor into the iMac G6 probably would increase heat due to it's streamlined looks and weight.I know it's small but obviously the SuperDrive sort of like revs up while reading a disc.So obviously this will increase the speed but may effect the iMacs interior hardware design.

[zw-gator]

pfft maybe for those of us in the know! literally 95% of people i know have no idea about computers - they think that a P4 3.2GHz CPU is better then a 2.0GHz dual core. i think there should be a mandatory test result with each computer sold, that would make it much easier for the...uhh... less informed ;)


Exactly.

I'd venture to guess that a large percentage of people who buy from places like BestBuy think that the larger the HD, the faster the computer. Or going from 2GB of RAM to 4GB means twice the performance.

When it comes it selling computers to the general public, you're dealing with the truly ignorant.

[Terminal.app]

Exactly.

I'd venture to guess that a large percentage of people who buy from places like BestBuy think that the larger the HD, the faster the computer. Or going from 2GB of RAM to 4GB means twice the performance.

When it comes it selling computers to the general public, you're dealing with the truly ignorant.

I know a gentleman who bought more RAM for his computer because he thought it would make his "downloading stuff faster."

And yes, he bought the wrong RAM. :D

[AidenShaw]

...because he thought it would make his "downloading stuff faster."

But it just might make it faster....

[Terminal.app]

But it just might make it faster....

But many people have this idea that the speed of the system is determined by the amount of RAM installed, which isn't exactly true. A netbook with 16 terabytes of RAM installed would still perform relatively slowly thanks to its Atom CPU.

Also, most everyday users don't understand the concept of 32 and 64-bitness, and how that relates to how much RAM can actually be seen and used by applications and the system itself.

[AidenShaw]

But many people have this idea that the speed of the system is determined by the amount of RAM installed, which isn't exactly true.

It's not *exactly* true, but it's often true. ;)

Two things about my comment...

IE8 uses more RAM than IE7 (the process-per-tab-group is a big reason). Systems that were on the edge as far as memory (the 256 MiB systems from 6 years ago) are going over the edge with IE8. Adding memory to these systems will make surfing and downloading noticeably faster.
Excess memory is used for filesystem caches, so extra memory does make the system seem snappier™. Windows 7 and Vista, in fact, will pre-load frequently used applications into cache so that they're ready for the first use. (Some people look at the fact that Win7/Vista seldom have much completely free memory available because of this - and decide that it's bloat, rather than a useful optimization.)

[kevink2]

It seems surprising to me that, at this point, Apple still doesn't have a quad core iMac. If, early last year, Apple had had a quad core iMac that supported at least 8GB of RAM I probably would have gone that route rather than a more expensive, larger, Mac Pro. Instead, I overbought with an 8 core system, which now has 14GB of RAM because it can take it.

[barkmonster]

It seems surprising to me that, at this point, Apple still doesn't have a quad core iMac. If, early last year, Apple had had a quad core iMac that supported at least 8GB of RAM I probably would have gone that route rather than a more expensive, larger, Mac Pro. Instead, I overbought with an 8 core system, which now has 14GB of RAM because it can take it.

That's a +1 for Apple and a -1 for an Apple customer. Just think of the Dual 24" screens, 8Gb RAM, huge external drive or even BTO SSD drive you could have spent all that Mac Pro money on if you'd had an iMac model with the features you needed.

[zw-gator]

It seems surprising to me that, at this point, Apple still doesn't have a quad core iMac. If, early last year, Apple had had a quad core iMac that supported at least 8GB of RAM I probably would have gone that route rather than a more expensive, larger, Mac Pro. Instead, I overbought with an 8 core system, which now has 14GB of RAM because it can take it.

It has to do with the thermal constraints. The imac as it stands today is basically a jumbo MBP

[Macinposh]

It seems surprising to me that, at this point, Apple still doesn't have a quad core iMac.

It has to do with the thermal constraints. The imac as it stands today is basically a jumbo MBP



Nope. The iMac would have the capability of carrying a quad,even without any large re-engineering.
The TDP of old G5 were much higher than present cpu´s, so there still is overhead with the heat.

The problem would be that it would compete with and undermine the quad Macpro...
It would be very close in raw computing speed,and apple would have their hands full trying to explain why "1500$ iMac beats their 3000$ workstation".
They would take a hit in their their sales/profits off the low end Macpros in a hartbeat.They wont do that.

iMacs will go quad core,just propably not yet.
And if they go now,they would use that lower clockspeed quads that would have enough difference with the MPs.

[diamond.g]

Excellent article. This page shows that even with 4 cores being used, there's still over 17Gb/s of bandwidth available but based on the "per core" analysis of barefeats, that would make it even less than the Mac Pro gets wouldn't it?

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=7

I thought they claim that the way Apple counts up bandwidth isn't accurate. It appears that the memory itself has more bandwidth than the CPUs can handle.

[DoFoT9]

I don't know precisely how the Core i7 distributes clock speed and bandwidth. If it literally switches off 1 core to clock up the remaining 3, then it's a hell of lot more complicated than the explanation of Mac Pro bandwidth in Quad and 8-Core systems below...

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html
reading that article it doesnt really show us if it "switches" memory bandwidth priorities or not, as most of those tests are completely pegging the CPU.

Exactly.

I'd venture to guess that a large percentage of people who buy from places like BestBuy think that the larger the HD, the faster the computer. Or going from 2GB of RAM to 4GB means twice the performance.

When it comes it selling computers to the general public, you're dealing with the truly ignorant.
some are ignorant, most are uninformed. its more because of the social images that people dont know anything about computers. it is considered "geeky" to know stuff, you get teased by your friends and plastered by your non-friends for being a nerd. dont i know it. then their computer breaks and you're their best friend.

computers are the way of the future and there NEEDS to be an emphasis on teach everyone the basics (or maybe not so that it keeps me in the job haha).

I know a gentleman who bought more RAM for his computer because he thought it would make his "downloading stuff faster."

And yes, he bought the wrong RAM. :D
what a silly g00se haha.

But it just might make it faster....
well yes it may or may not. it really depends on the configuration of the computer. if he had 2gb in his system running XP and IE8 then yea putting in 4gb wont make much difference.. if he had 512mb and upped to 2gb then the differences may be more apparent, but we cannot speculate as there are MANY other factors that could be causing the slowdown.

It seems surprising to me that, at this point, Apple still doesn't have a quad core iMac. If, early last year, Apple had had a quad core iMac that supported at least 8GB of RAM I probably would have gone that route rather than a more expensive, larger, Mac Pro. Instead, I overbought with an 8 core system, which now has 14GB of RAM because it can take it.

well you were the smart one werent you. as others have said there are many reasons why there is no quad core imac. i personally think its because apple is waiting for the right price, type of CPU and the right time for them to implement it. they will bring out something that will be different (i feel). they will probably wait for the 32nm quads, less heat and more power. hopefully that will be the right time :)