Intel iBook Processor Speculation

[MacRumors]

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

Appleinsider speculates on what today's MacBook Pro processor bump might mean with respect to the upcoming Intel iBook.

Apple's MacBook Pro was upgraded from 1.67GHz and 1.83GHz models to 1.83GHz and 2.0GHz models respectively. In additional there is an option for a 2.16GHz Build-to-Order model. To review, Intel presently has the following Yonah processors in their product line:

T1300 (Single) - 1.66GHz
T2300 (Dual) - 1.66GHz
T2400 (Dual) - 1.83GHz - MacBook Pro 1.83GHz
T2500 (Dual) - 2.00GHz - MacBook Pro 2.00GHz
T2600 (Dual) - 2.16GHz - MacBook Pro BTO

Low Voltage Versions
L2300 (Dual) - 1.5GHz
L2400 (Dual) - 1.66GHz

While it appears there is no reliable information available on what will be used in the Intel-based iBook, the Single Core T1300 1.66GHz model has been mentioned as the possible candidate for use in the upcoming iBook. With the upgrade of the MacBook Pro line into the 1.83GHz+ models, it opens up the possibility that Apple could use the 1.66GHz Dual Core processor in the iBook.

That being said, previous speculation by ThinkSecret suggested that Apple was planning on using the Dual Core Low Voltage version of the Yonah processors (1.5GHz and 1.66GHz) in the Intel iBook.

[pdpfilms]

Are there specs posted on the "low voltage" power consumption compared to the dual cores? I'd like to know how much more life one might be able to get with this proc.

[jjmaximum]

Just use something and get them out the door...

[longofest]

I vote for low-voltage. Let an iBook be an iBook, and a Powerbook... err... MacBook Pro be a MacBook Pro. (damn you apple for that name change)

Something to keep in mind: what will Apple use for 12" and 17" models of MacBook Pro when they come out? I'd suspect you'll see the 1.67 core-duo in the 12", and the 2.167 in the 17".

Then again, Apple could stay simple and use the 1.83 in the 12" and the 2.167 in the 17".

My point though is that you have to account for the low-end MacBook Pro's that will come out in a month or two, and the iBooks still have to come in under that. So, my bet is on low-voltage versions.

[arn]

Originally Posted by pdpfilms

Are there specs posted on the "low voltage" power consumption compared to the dual cores? I'd like to know how much more life one might be able to get with this proc.

not sure how official this is, but found this PDF

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2...igai225_04.pdf

Intel Core Duo: 31W
Intel Core Solo: 27W
Low Voltage Duo: 15W
Ultra Low Voltage Duo: 9W
Ultra Low Voltage Solo: 5.5W

I think Ultra Low Voltage processors are not out yet. due in April, I believe.

arn

[ibook30]

I say give the ibook as much juice at it can hold!
But it's gotta handle it - as a likely laptop for first time mac buyers- if it's glitchy it makes the whole line look rotten.

[longofest]

Originally Posted by arn

not sure how official this is, but found this PDF

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2...igai225_04.pdf

Intel Core Duo: 31W
Intel Core Solo: 27W
Low Voltage Duo: 15W
Ultra Low Voltage Duo: 9W
Ultra Low Voltage Solo: 5.5W

I think Ultra Low Voltage processors are not out yet. due in April, I believe.

arn

sounds right

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I'll take a 12"/13" MacBook with a low voltage dual 1.5 without optical drive. Imagine the battery life on something like that...

[Kingsly]

For comparison, what is the current draw of the G4's used in the PB's? Perhaps one could get some ballpark figures of the MBP battery life by comparing the two?

[ncbill]

So, the price difference between the dual/solo @ 1.66GHz is only about $30, but could be less when you're purchasing thousands upon thousands.

It would be so much nicer to have a dual in the iBook and Mini.

Wouldn't that help with Rosetta?

[Dr. Dastardly]

Wouldn't they want low volatage for the iBooks. I would think that the people purchasing the "i" line would want a better battery life rather than a bump in processor power.

Probably goes hand in hand with the rumors that the iBooks would be released in April along side the ultra low voltage of the Intel chips that would be released in that month.

[Kimi]

Will the be any difference that you could see in normal use that the 0.2 or what ever would make? I'm not to sure as I've only ever jumped in large numbers with my Windows box, and I'm on my first Mac.

I'm not really fussed what the numbers are in the end as I will be looking for the cheepest note book from the lot of them, and I think it will be the same for many people.

[shawnce]

Price list (Apple is likely getting a better price)...

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

[Chundles]

Price difference between 1.66GHz Core Solo and 1.66GHz Core Duo is about $30.

Those Low Voltage Core Duos cost an arm and a leg though, much more expensive than the regular ones.

I'd love to see 1.66GHz Core Duos in the iBook and Mac mini. Every computer in the line-up would have dual processors - them's some serious bragging rights and if they could keep the iBook price down it would thump anything the PPC manufacturers could come out with at the same price. They're all probably sticking Core Solos in their budget laptops.

[yankeefan24]

Originally Posted by ncbill

So, the price difference between the dual/solo @ 1.66GHz is only about $30, but could be less when you're purchasing thousands upon thousands.

It would be so much nicer to have a dual in the iBook and Mini.

Wouldn't that help with Rosetta?

only a mere $32. If it was a solo with a BTO dual, dual ULV or LV, that would be my dream computer.
Roseta needs more RAM than CPU (but CPU would help). I think if they put duals in there entire lineup would be bragging rights (as mentioned above), but apple gets less of their huge markup (sob).

[longofest]

Originally Posted by Kingsly

For comparison, what is the current draw of the G4's used in the PB's? Perhaps one could get some ballpark figures of the MBP battery life by comparing the two?

Wasn't able to find the exact spec sheet of the 7447A's that Apple uses in the Powerbook G4's, but if you look at the following link, you can see that the current G4's run around 30W at 1420 Mhz. So, tack on a few Watts for a few Mhz, and you have what a 1.5Ghz and 1.67 Ghz PowerBook draws.

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...468rH3bTdG8653

EDIT: It is possible that Apple simply uses the listed 1420 Mhz model that Freescale has listed, and simply overclocks it. This would of course require more power as stated above, so adjust accordingly

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Originally Posted by Chundles

Those Low Voltage Core Duos cost an arm and a leg though, much more expensive than the regular ones.

I don't know, according to the list above, the T2400 (2M L2 cache 1.83 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $294 and the T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $241 and the low voltage version, the L2400 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $316 (and the 1.5 GHz version, even cheaper at $284). Not that big price difference...

Can't beat the price of the Core Solo T1300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) at $209, though, so I suspect that is what's going into the base MacBook and Mac mini...

I know this isn't the prices Apple pay, but the relative price difference shouldn't vary too much...

[nagromme]

I think the iBook name is on the way out, and I don't think Apple will limit themselves to two rigid lines of laptops anymore. "MacBook ______" allows for multiple different products that aren't necessarily in a strict hierarchy. Just like with iPods. There can now be low-end and high-end MacBooks, ultrathin, ultrathick, tablets... whatever the future may call for.

Whatever MacBook becomes the VERY low end will get a single core I think. If Core Solo makes sense for any computer maker, then why not for Apple? But there may be other models with dual cores, below the MacBook Pro.

Same with Mac Mini, I think the low-end will stay single core, but dual models above that would be great.

[trailblazer]

MacBook Pro's ship next week

[mrgreen4242]

When I read about this "update" (can't really call it that since no machines with the lower specs were released) I hoped that it meant they wanted to have a dual core iBook but didn't want to step on the MacBook Pro's toes. Here's my thinking...

Have 2 iBooks, like there is now, only both with a 13" widescreen display and the choice being single or dual core. $1000 and $1300 price points could stay, or hopefully drop $100 or so. The extra $300 could buy you the dual core CPU, a SD (Combo in the lower end model), maybe some RAM, a 'larger' battery (for the extra draw with 2 CPUs), bigger HDD, etc.

However, I'm not sure that ANY Yonah chip could be used in a $1000 machine right now... Is any manufacturer offering a sub-$1k dual core laptop yet? Since the Solo core is so close in price it would seem that if you can't get a Duo for $1050 then you're not going to get a Solo for $999... yet.

[macEfan]

wow, dual core on ibooks? that would be very cool. They would be able to run all the top new apps flawlessly! I wonder if they will change the design of the ibook drastically.

[thejedipunk]

Well as one person pointed out that they are expensive, I would like to see those Low Voltage or Ultra Low Voltage Duos in the iBook. Don't see how that would be possible.

Assuming that Apple will only have one size for the new iBook, I can see them putting in the 1.66 ghz Duo in that sucker. Most likely bumping up the video RAM to 64mb but giving you the option to upgrade it to the max of 128.
Standard features being single layer DVD-R, minimum 60 gig HDD upgradeable to 150 gig. Among other things.

One feature I would really like to see in the new iBook though, is the addition of a dedicated line-in port. Not having one the current iBooks renders GarageBand useless unless you get an iMic. :/

[~Shard~]

With the speed bump to the MacBook Pros, it is more likely that the iBooks could indeed see dual core processors. One of the main factors holding that back initially was simply product differentiation if nothing else. Of course there is always the potential that the low end iBook could get a single core and the high end could get a dual core, but that might almost be too much of a gap between models...

Guess we'll find out in the next month!

[ezekielrage_99]

Well people were surprised when the MacBook Pro was released with an Intel Core Duo not the Pentium M that most people were expecting.

Also we are getting speed bumps with the current line of Macbook Pros, I'm surprised we can't get a BTO 20" Intel iMac with a 2.16Ghz option.

I think for the sake of $30 Apple would be stupid not to put in a Duo Processor in the Intel iBooks (or MacBook).

Apple can still save by not putting faster graphics cards, etc in the Intel iBook because after all it's a consumer product not a pro line product, it doesn't need a few of the features the MacBook Pro has.

[Stridder44]

Low Voltage takes my vote too