First Intel Penryn Chips Due in 2007?

[MacRumors]

Despite original plans for a Q1 2008 launch, Xbitlabs claims that Intel is anticipating an early launch for a least some of their next generation Penryn processors.

Initially it was projected that Intel’s new quad-core processors based on improved micro-architecture that is usually referred to as “Penryn” will be launched in the first quarter of 2008, but the company has changed its plans and now such chips will be available already in the fourth quarter of 2007, in time to compete against AMD Phenom processors based on the K10 micro-architecture.

Specifically, Xbitlabs believes that a 45nm Quad-Core processor topping out at 3.33GHz with a 1333MHz bus will be released in the 2007 timeframe, with the bulk of the Penryn chips still waiting until 2008.

Whether or not this will affect Apple's lineup remains to be seen. Apple currently uses Intel's Server class (Xeon) processors in the Mac Pro, while it uses Mobile class (Core 2 Duo) processors in the bulk of the remainder of its line (iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook). The Mac mini continues to use the earlier Core Duo processor.

Apple does not yet use any of Intel's Desktop class processors (Core 2 Duo / Conroe) in any of their shipping models. Of note, Apple is widely expected to release new iMacs at next week's media event. The event will take place on August 7th, 2007 at 10AM Pacific. According to our Buyer's Guide the iMac was last updated 331 days ago.

Article Link

[nebula]

Certainly a new iMac will continue to use the mobile-class architecture instead of the desktop architecture.

... And Xeons - yes, they're server-class, but in the context of the Mac Pro they are workstation class. (Intel marketing speak)

[verniesgarden]

so when will apple desktops use desktop hardware?

[nigletsyz]

apple has been riding the gravy train on the iMacs for awhile now... time for something new already.

[roland.g]

It won't affect Apple as there won't be any updates to the new iMacs before MWSF and doubtful that a MBP revision will show up in early Nov. They tend not to update any later than that to solidify the lineup for the holiday season. This also makes no mention of Desktop vs. Mobile releases.

[studiopix]

Apple really needs to address this important desktop class of processors in their lineup. A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro. Something small, thin, competitively priced and with a choice of monitor size. Something that can kick butt in gaming as well as easily handle the daily 2D/3D design work.

[EagerDragon]

Ready for 45nm Quad Core MBP Summer 2008.

[Spanky Deluxe]

I'll eat my hat the day Apple uses desktop processors in any new iMacs (well for the next few years at least). It keeps costs low to use the same chipset and processor types across as many machines as possible, hence why iMacs and Mac Minis share most of their components with MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
This way they only need to deal with two product lines, mobile chip based machines and workstation chip based machines. The Mac Mini, MacBook, iMac and MacBook Pro are all essentially the same (apart from the new MBP) apart from different processors (which are all pin compatible with one another) and different graphics cards. This way Apple can also use some of the bucks they save by using only two hardware platforms to create sleeker and thinner consumer desktops (which require mobile components anyway because of thermal issues).
My guess is that the new iMacs will match the MBPs hardware wise with the exception of customisable GPUs in at least the top model. I'd put money on it.

[pianoplayer1]

I have an iMac G5 (iSight) now and I REALLY want an Intel.

I'd like these new iMacs to have a desktop conroe processor and an Nvidia 8800.

[psingh01]

Originally Posted by studiopix

Apple really needs to address this important desktop class of processors in their lineup. A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro. Something small, thin, competitively priced and with a choice of monitor size. Something that can kick butt in gaming as well as easily handle the daily 2D/3D design work.

Then there is the 3rd option of going with a Vista Workstation. One which I am increasingly looking towards because of the lack of upgrades or price drops on Macs....

[williedigital]

what's the real benefit of using a conroe over a merom? in the practical sense... Just the bus speed increase?

[zero2dash]

Originally Posted by pianoplayer1

I'd like these new iMacs to have a desktop conroe processor and an Nvidia 8800.

I'd also like to see them put those components into an enclosure the size of the iMac and have it run for more than 2 minutes without overheating.

Not gonna happen.

45nm Quad Extreme was already slated for Q4 2007...I think I'll still hold onto my $290 G0 Q6600 purchase plan though in a few months; QE will undoubtedly be a high dollar chip just like the rest of their Extreme processors.

[johnee]

Originally Posted by zero2dash

I'd also like to see them put those components into an enclosure the size of the iMac and have it run for more than 2 minutes without overheating.

Not gonna happen.

wo wo, what in the wide wide world of sports is goin' on around here....

there's a possible new design coming, so MAYBE there's a chance

(but i doubt it, the redesign will be 90% aesthetic, 10% engineering/functional, so you're probably still right).

[yoman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C25 Safari/419.3)

I agree that is probably is unlikely that these processors will make into the new iMac. Its too late in the production process.

[GFLPraxis]

Originally Posted by williedigital

what's the real benefit of using a conroe over a merom? in the practical sense... Just the bus speed increase?

Faster at the same price.

A 2.4 GHz Conroe will run faster than a 2.4 GHz Merom due to the bus speed and probably cost a good $100 less or so.

I don't think seeing Conroe in the new iMac is out of the question. Apple has redesigned it...could it be for better cooling to support Conroe?

[ImAlwaysRight]

Originally Posted by zero2dash

I'd also like to see them put those components into an enclosure the size of the iMac and have it run for more than 2 minutes without overheating.

Not gonna happen.

How much hotter is the desktop Intel CPUs vs. the G5? I thought the G5 was a pretty hot chip, hench no Powerbook G5 released on a Tuesday (sorry to burst some of you people's bubbles).

But seriously, I have a 2.1GHz G5 almost 2 years old and the thing runs so quiet I cannot even hear it sitting at the keyboard. Is Conroe/Penryn that much hotter?

Also, since the new iMac design is suppose to be as thin or thinner than the current iMac, I imagine we will see the Merom chip in these babies. But it would suck if I buy Merom in August and Penryn gets put in the next update in Jan 08.

[Penryn]

Unlikely they'll use Conroes/Penryn, Meroms are a lot better suited to the type of machines Apple make ie the small thin iMac and then their mobile line.

I don't think Intel could've picked a better name for their new chips
Though I would say that wouldn't I

[wizard]

These processors do have potential for use in an iMac class machine. All you need to do is to choose the right clock speed and manage the resultant power. The other reality is that desktop processors give Apple more flexibility in support chips. I can see Apple going this way, the only issue being one of power management. Otherwise a 45 nm processor here could be a big win.

While the 45 nm size in and of itself is an advantage, a quad core iMac has its own attractiveness even on older generation hardware.

Dave

[badcrumble]

God, I know I'm going to end up replacing my 5-year-old 700 MHz G4 iMac next week, but I may want to replace the new one again if they get Penryn in them.

[Eidorian]

4 MHz away from 1337.

You can expect quad core iMacs from Penryn.

[Multimedia]

Core 2 Quad processors have been out long enough for Apple figure out how to keep them cool in a new iMac design. If Tuesday isn't launch day for Quad Core iMacs then I really don't understand Apple any more.

Originally Posted by Eidorian

4 MHz away from 1337. You can expect quad core iMacs from Penryn.

Hey you stole my thunder!

Originally Posted by nebula

Certainly a new iMac will continue to use the mobile-class architecture instead of the desktop architecture.

I see that as most uncertain.

[Cloudsurfer]

I don't think Apple will have C2Q's on Tuesday, but certainly down the road. RevB, perhaps?

[Marx55]

What about power consumption?

Could the Penryn be used for the new Mac mini in 2008 or so?

I want the performance of the Mac Pro and I would pay for it, but I use Mac mini because it is extremely quiet. My priorities are:

1. Quiet.
2. Performance.
3. Connectors (idealky eSATA II and FireWire 800).
5. Size.

Thanks.

[suneohair]

Originally Posted by Spanky Deluxe

I'll eat my hat the day Apple uses desktop processors in any new iMacs (well for the next few years at least). It keeps costs low to use the same chipset and processor types across as many machines as possible, hence why iMacs and Mac Minis share most of their components with MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
This way they only need to deal with two product lines, mobile chip based machines and workstation chip based machines. The Mac Mini, MacBook, iMac and MacBook Pro are all essentially the same (apart from the new MBP) apart from different processors (which are all pin compatible with one another) and different graphics cards. This way Apple can also use some of the bucks they save by using only two hardware platforms to create sleeker and thinner consumer desktops (which require mobile components anyway because of thermal issues).
My guess is that the new iMacs will match the MBPs hardware wise with the exception of customisable GPUs in at least the top model. I'd put money on it.

I didn't check to see if anyone caught this already. But I want to point something out to you. While it may very keep chipset costs low the mobile CPUs are EXPENSIVE. Very EXPENSIVE. Granted I will be showcasing retail pricing, but it nonetheless demonstrates the difference.

3.0Ghz E6850 (recently released by Intel) costs $320 at newegg. With a known $266 price when buying 1000.

For around the same price sits the 2.0Ghz T7300 for $249 (lower price when buying 1000). What is Apple using these days, the 2.16 and 2.33 with a retail price of ~$430 and ~$645. So, for the same price and less you get faster chips.

One may say "but the heat!" Well, voltage wise the top end for the T7300 is 1.3v, and the E6850? 1.35v. TDP is 35w for the t7300 though. Very nice, the e6850 sits at 65w. But this isn't too different form the ancient G5 Apple was using in the previous iMac with similar design.

Price of the CPUs isn't the only reason however. Memory is cheaper when looking at cost vs. performance. The chipsets are in general cheaper as well and perform better.

There is no reason to cripple the iMac with mobile CPUs, memory, and chipsets. The cost would be virtually the same but performance would increase by at least 20%. They got around the G5, I am sure they can around the Conroes.

Will they do it? I don't know. But they can and they should. I won't hold my breath though.

[ncbill]

Didn't those G5 iMacs get hotter than blazes?

Wonder if that had anything to do with the rash of power supply failures on that model.

I think the other poster hit on it: much cheaper/easier for Apple to stick with the cooler mobile option across the consumer lineup, with only a couple of graphics options (apart from the integrated graphics)

They obviously aren't paying anything near list for the mobile CPUs.

Any rumor site going to post leaked specs before Tuesday?

Originally Posted by suneohair

One may say "but the heat!" Well, voltage wise the top end for the T7300 is 1.3v, and the E6850? 1.35v. TDP is 35w for the t7300 though. Very nice, the e6850 sits at 65w. But this isn't too different form the ancient G5 Apple was using in the previous iMac with similar design.