Intel Demos 45nm Penryn Processors, Due by end of 2007

[gnasher729]

hafnium? How much of that is there on earth/how easy is it to mine? I hope the mining of it isn't a major environmental nightmare like so many metals. I wonder if this will change the market for hafnium seriously.

other than that, yay 45 nm!

Considering that the Hafnium is supposed to replace the gate dielectric with a thickness of 1.2 nm (that is nanometer, that is 1 billionth of a meter), I don't think we have to worry.

Assuming a 200 square millimeter chip, one cubic centimetre of Hafnium would be enough for four million chips. It's density is quite high at 13.3 gram per cubic centimeter, even so, one gram will be enough for about 300,000 chips.

 

[AidenShaw]

If Steve feels like it, that is....

Other than that, this sounds like a simple drop-in, and by early 2008 we should see these in some systems.

Apple was quite slow in adopting Core 2, and *still* isn't offering quad-core Kentsfield/Cloverton systems - even though the other Intel manufacturers have been selling them for months.

 

[Eidorian]

Apple was quite slow in adopting Core 2, and *still* isn't offering quad-core Kentsfield/Cloverton systems - even though the other Intel manufacturers have been selling them for months.

Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.

My guesses on Gilo is that it's just the codename for Merom in its Socket P form factor.

 

[Episteme]

Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.

My guesses on Gilo is that it's just the codename for Merom in its Socket P form factor.

Possibly. Intel has offered the same core (e.g. Willamette in both S423 and S478) in multiple socket forms in the past though.

It depends how much has changed. I know Socket P heralds the move to an 800MT/s FSB so perhaps that and some other changes have been deemed worthy.

OTOH, the roadmaps I've seen said Gilo was "multi-core" rather than "dual-core", which is usually Intel-speak for 4 (or more, occasionally).

 

[dernhelm]

Apple was quite slow in adopting Core 2, and *still* isn't offering quad-core Kentsfield/Cloverton systems - even though the other Intel manufacturers have been selling them for months.

I don't think Kentsfield/Cloverton ever made Apple's product roadmap at all. But a whole new processor at at 45nm size is very likely to. Does that mean that I think Apple will introduce this chip across their entire product range simultaneously? No. But unless something in the chip technology (e.g. SSE4) really throws them for some sort of loop, you should see something very early in 2008, and within months have everything moved over to the new chips.

I may be in the minority, but I applaud Apple for not trying to fit every chip Intel makes into one product or another, just for completeness sake. If Intel makes a chip that doesn't fit their current product portfolio, skip on it. I would've liked to see them be able to adopt the chips they did choose to use a little more quickly, but it hasn't seem to hurt them from a bottom line standpoint. So I doubt Apple feels like the C2D transition was too slow, or hurt them sales-wise at all.


---
500th post!
---

 

[iW00t]

I may be in the minority, but I applaud Apple for not trying to fit every chip Intel makes into one product or another, just for completeness sake. If Intel makes a chip that doesn't fit their current product portfolio, skip on it. I would've liked to see them be able to adopt the chips they did choose to use a little more quickly, but it hasn't seem to hurt them from a bottom line standpoint. So I doubt Apple feels like the C2D transition was too slow, or hurt them sales-wise at all.

I agree.

I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

I am a simple minded consumer who uses Apple products. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why 8 processors running at a slower speed is more expensive than 4 processors running at a faster speed!

Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!

 

[Eidorian]

Possibly. Intel has offered the same core (e.g. Willamette in both S423 and S478) in multiple socket forms in the past though.

It depends how much has changed. I know Socket P heralds the move to an 800MT/s FSB so perhaps that and some other changes have been deemed worthy.

OTOH, the roadmaps I've seen said Gilo was "multi-core" rather than "dual-core", which is usually Intel-speak for 4 (or more, occasionally).

I was surprised by Gilo honestly. I didn't see it mentioned until a read a roadmap a few months ago.

Can't it just be something from an older roadmap?

 

[zblaxberg]

Man, this whole "wait till '08" philosophy of mine is really paying off. I'll get a second revision Penryn/Santa Rosa MacBook with all the goodies.

But I need my MBP before I go to college in August!!!

 

[Episteme]

I don't think Kentsfield/Cloverton ever made Apple's product roadmap at all. But a whole new processor at at 45nm size is very likely to. Does that mean that I think Apple will introduce this chip across their entire product range simultaneously? No. But unless something in the chip technology (e.g. SSE4) really throws them for some sort of loop, you should see something very early in 2008, and within months have everything moved over to the new chips.

I may be in the minority, but I applaud Apple for not trying to fit every chip Intel makes into one product or another, just for completeness sake. If Intel makes a chip that doesn't fit their current product portfolio, skip on it. I would've liked to see them be able to adopt the chips they did choose to use a little more quickly, but it hasn't seem to hurt them from a bottom line standpoint. So I doubt Apple feels like the C2D transition was too slow, or hurt them sales-wise at all.

I can see the point of not going for every variant (e.g. Conroe) but it makes sense when a model is upgraded to move to the latest version (e.g. Yonah to Merom).

I'd assume Apple's changeover is timed to coincide with their supply line emptying of the older model.

I'm a little surprised there's no clovertown BTO option for the Mac Pro though.

 

[iW00t]

But I need my MBP before I go to college in August!!!

Santa Rosa, flash booting, and LED backlit displays are good enough!

Learn to count your blessings!

 

[Episteme]

I was surprised by Gilo honestly. I didn't see it mentioned until a read a roadmap a few months ago.

Can't it just be something from an older roadmap?

Yeah, could be.

I've seen it mentioned off and on for years, but back then it was a Nehalem variant -- but *THAT* Nehalem was a NetBurst chip and the successor to Tejas, running in the 8-10GHz range and due um... last-year-ish, I think.

It appears Intel reuses code-names...

 

[Episteme]

But I need my MBP before I go to college in August!!!

At worst, your MBP is the current C2D model (probably with Leopard).

It's still a very nice machine

 

[Chef Medeski]

Penryn and SSD is still a while away, IMO. If I were buying now, I would wait for LED screens, preloaded Leopard and iLife 07. When they add the LED screens, I'll bet you'll see a RAM bump, HD bump, graphics card bump, screen rez bump (for Leopard), and a SuperDrive bump. IMHO, of course.

Devinetely. It'll get Intel 802.11n chips plus Robson technology. This along with LED screens will mean hopefully an hour or two of extra battery life.

One thing you forgot though is bumped Core 2 Duo Chips, I know few know about this but they have 2.4 and 2.2Ghz chips now, which is a nice little bump so people dont feel like they have the SAME CPU altough it practically is. I know I know 40 Mhz.....

 

[Kuska]

New stuff:

I'm very very glad I asked - - Cheers!

 

[iW00t]

At worst, your MBP is the current C2D model (probably with Leopard).

It's still a very nice machine

With a screen that is either grainy with a dimmer right hand side (15") or one that has all round blotchy backlighting (17").



If come August I am like the OP and in the market, and Apple is still trying to milk its loyal customers with 1 year old technology at top dollar. I will just switch to a PC and make it a Hackintosh. Seriously.

 

[Chef Medeski]

Santa Rosa, flash booting, and LED backlit displays are good enough!

Learn to count your blessings!

Seriously. 10.5 plus Santa Rosa plus LED is bliss. If they can bump the batteries by 2 hours I would just cry. That would be too much for me. A case change would be even better.

 

[Eidorian]

Yeah, could be.

I've seen it mentioned off and on for years, but back then it was a Nehalem variant -- but *THAT* Nehalem was a NetBurst chip and the successor to Tejas, running in the 8-10GHz range and due um... last-year-ish, I think.

It appears Intel reuses code-names...

Yeah Intel killed off a few codenames and rehashed some other ones.

It looks like this now for mobile..

Yonah (Napa) -> Merom (Napa/Santa Rosa) -> Penryn (Santa Rosa/Montevina)

 

[Episteme]

Yeah Intel killed off a few codenames and rehashed some other ones.

It looks like this now for mobile..

Yonah (Napa) -> Merom (Napa/Santa Rosa) -> Penryn (Santa Rosa/Montevina)

Yeah, that's the one I've seen too.

However, I've also seen a lot of mentions of Gilo around, all without any real details but being referred to as "mutli-core" and there's been a buzz for a while about a quad-based laptop platform...

So, old stuff that's gotten mixed in with the new, or something else?

Your guess is as good as mine...

 

[AidenShaw]

Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.

Huh?

Apple was one of the *last* manufacturers to announce Yonah-based systems.

CES '2006 was a Yonah festival, Apple didn't do anything with Yonah until Macworld 2006 the following week.

 

[Stridder44]

Seriously. 10.5 plus Santa Rosa plus LED is bliss. If they can bump the batteries by 2 hours I would just cry. That would be too much for me. A case change would be even better.

 

[AidenShaw]

I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

There are people who need the octo-core power now who would disagree with you.

And, why do you assume that selling an octo would mean that the quads would disappear? Other companies offer their customers the choice of an octo, or a quad that's slightly faster per thread.

• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5060 3.20GHz, 2 X 2MB L2,1066 [add $130]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $930]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5150 2.66GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $520]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5140 2.33GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $260]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5130 2.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333 [add $130]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5120 1.86GHz, 4MB L2,1066 [add $60]
• Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5110 1.60GHz, 4MB L2,1066 [Included in Price]
• Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5320 1.86GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1066 [add $620]
• Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5355 2.66GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1333 [add $1,290]
• Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5345 2.33GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1333 [add $1,030]

Why is "choice" bad?

Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!

Oh, are you one of those people who panics when he sees a two-button mouse?

 

[Eidorian]

Huh?

Apple was one of the *last* manufacturers to announce Yonah-based systems.

CES '2006 was a Yonah festival, Apple didn't do anything with Yonah until Macworld 2006 the following week.

Let me change that to having Yonah based machines shipping. I don't remember any other manufacturers having a shipping model one week after CES 2006.

 

[Multimedia]

Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown Will Be Faster Enough For Those Who Need More Cores

I agree.

I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

I am a simple minded consumer who uses Apple products. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why 8 processors running at a slower speed is more expensive than 4 processors running at a faster speed!

Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!

2.66GHz x 8 = 21.28GHz
3GHz x 4 = 12GHz

If you know your workflow is multi-threaded and can use all or most of those cores at once, this first generation of Quad Core processors is plenty faster than the Dual Core 3GHz Woody.

What's holding up Dual Clovertown's is Stoakley-Seaburg which is only now just beginning to ship in quantity. Apple isn't skipping it. They're simply waiting for the rest of the parts to make an 8 core Mac Pro right.

 

[Episteme]

I agree.

I for one hope Apple never releases a dual quad Mac Pro until Intel's quad core processors run at faster clock speeds than the current dual core ones.

Why?

I am a simple minded consumer who uses Apple products. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why 8 processors running at a slower speed is more expensive than 4 processors running at a faster speed!

Because it's more overall horsepower, and because it costs more to manufacture. More complex systems are like that.

For highly-parallelized tasks, the eight cores are a big win. Workloads such as like video rendering/compression, databases, etc.

Keep selling the 4 processors at yesterday's prices, yes, I as a simple Mac user comprehendo it completely!

I inquire in the spirit of genuine curiosity -- if you don't want to buy one, why is it of consequence if they do offer such a model for sale?

 

[AidenShaw]

Let me change that to having Yonah based machines shipping.

OK, I accept the change of topic. Apple was not first.

I don't remember any other manufacturers having a shipping model one week after CES 2006.

But then, neither did Apple.

Even so, there were verified reports of Yonah machines in the hands of other computer companies' customers before any reports of Apple customer shipments. (I'm separating machines sent to reviewers from machines delivered by FedEx to regular consumers.)

All I'm arguing is that your claim

Originally Posted by Eidorian
Then again they were one of the first manufacturers to offer Core Duo based systems.​

is simply wrong. Unless, of course, you realize that the timeline is compressed to the point where "one of the first" and "one of the last" are both accurate descriptions.

They were definitely late in announcing, and while in the general ballpark within a week or two of other companies, they weren't the first to ship.

It's like the recordable DVD introduction. Many Apple fanbois "know" that Apple was first with recordable DVD drives as BTO.

Of course, they don't check their facts - otherwise they'd realize that Compaq announced systems with the same Pioneer drive a week or so before The Lord God Jobs walked onstage at Moscone.