Apple Prepping for Notebook Refresh?

[iMacmatician]

The original LED MacBooks report said:
"Kenmos to benefit from use of BLUs in all MacBooks in 2009, says paper"

It doesn't explicitly say 2009 will be the year LEDs will go in the MacBooks, but that's what other sites picked up. So we'll see the first LED MacBooks in 2008 or (more likely?) 2009.

MacRumors and AppleInsider picked that up saying "by 2009."

I think we are going to see an Quad Core MacBook Pro in this coming update. If I am wrong, you guys could laugh at me. If I am right, I am going to laugh at you guys who don't believe the MacBook Pro won't have an Quad Core.

I would like to believe you but I'm not so sure.

Not only is it hard to believe. It's a logical fallacy.

No it's not.

 

[andiwm2003]

releasing new notebooks with new exciting designs would deflect from the mobileme bad press. so it would be a good time to release the new notebooks now.
of course it takes a while to design and produce them. so this would only happen if they have the new cases already and wait for the old stock to clear out.

anyway, i'm getting more and more happy with my lenovo 3000 v200 notebook. so if they don't release really exciting macbooks i might delay my purchase another year or so.

 

[Iam9376]

To clarify

Optimizations to an operating systems core architecture is NOT going to provide significant all around performance benefits to the excess of "outperforming a quad core anything"

OS X 10.6 is not going to make the rest of the computing world look like their running P3's.

A dual core processor will only out perform a quad core processor when the environment of it gives advantage to the lesser cores.

 

[Digital Skunk]

It won't be that much greater unless you are running software optimized for it. And even if you are, it won't be that much of an improvement unless you are doing processor intensive tasks.

Most users won't get much benefit from it actually.

My iMac outperforms most, if not all, of the PCs at Best Buy with the same processor right now.

True about Snow Leopard, but there is no equivalent to the Core 2 Extreme desktop chips. Laptop processors just can't keep up.

 

[diamond.g]

A dual core processor will only out perform a quad core processor when the environment of it gives advantage to the lesser cores.

Which is what they are claiming Grand Central is going to be able to do.

True about Snow Leopard, but there is no equivalent to the Core 2 Extreme desktop chips. Laptop processors just can't keep up.

They could if the had the same thermal envelope

 

[iMacmatician]

True about Snow Leopard, but there is no equivalent to the Core 2 Extreme desktop chips. Laptop processors just can't keep up.

Unless you get a Mac Pro, and that costs quite a bit. Apple may not even use quad-core in the MacBook Pro until 2010.

On an aside, I remember seeing an Intel slide that stated that a 32-core CPU is actually SLOWER than a 16-core CPU, unless optimizations were made.

They could if the had the same thermal envelope

Which would not make them laptop processors.

 

[SongEmu]

My iMac outperforms most, if not all, of the PCs at Best Buy with the same processor right now.

What benchmarks are there that are can be applied between different operating systems? Aside from taking a stopwatch to program boots?... just curious...

 

[Tallest Skil]

True about Snow Leopard, but there is no equivalent to the Core 2 Extreme desktop chips. Laptop processors just can't keep up.

I'll agree to that. There's no way right now.

*segue* When Snow Leopard comes around, I'll be back with the numbers to prove you wrong. I'm confident that I'm correct, and if the only way to convince you that you're wrong is by showing you, then I will. Not you, Digital Skunk... The other guy.

What benchmarks are there that are can be applied between different operating systems? Aside from taking a stopwatch to program boots?... just curious...

I was going by the Vista Experience Index, actually, as it seems that Vista runs better on my 2006 iMac than many of the PCs for sale today. Yes, if there's a standard to compare the performance of OS X (better than Vista) with a normal PC, I'd like to see the numbers there.

 

[SongEmu]

On an aside, I remember seeing an Intel slide that stated that a 32-core CPU is actually SLOWER than a 16-core CPU, unless optimizations were made.

is it all that surprising? memory latency on DDR3 memory is greater than with DDR2, and likewise with DDR. You can move more data at once, but you gotta wait more cycles to do it.

 

[Iam9376]

Which is what they are claiming Grand Central is going to be able to do.

So you're saying Grand Central is going to be optimized for Dual Core processing?

Wow. Really?

The fact is dual core processors only have the advantage to quad core processors in a few instances. Over time as developers refine code, this will not be the case.

Grand Central is not going to be the end all miracle of SMP computing as you all are leading yourselves to believe. It will not make your dual core Mac faster than a quad core PC in all instances.

Period.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I'll agree to that. There's no way right now.

*segue* Don't think that I'll forget this. When Snow Leopard comes around, I'll be back with the numbers to prove you wrong. I'm confident that I'm correct, and if the only way to convince you that you're wrong is by showing you, then I will. Not you, Digital Skunk... The other guy.

I agree about Snow Leopard, it will dramatically improve performance as it's intended to start tapping all the potential power in multi-core systems. If Windows or Linux fail to do so, then we will see laptop based systems outperforming quad desktops.

But just imagine what a Mac Quad desktop system would be able to do.

As for the Quad lappy, I won't expect that until late 2009 myself. And I'd prefer someone make a 4GB laptop RAM chip and small better GFX chips first, that's the real issue many are having with the MBP and CS3/FCSP/other pro apps.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Over time as developers refine code, this will not be the case.

Which is what they are claiming Grand Central is going to be able to do.

Why is it that we can rebuff your comments with the same sentence over and over? Because no one knows anything yet. But yes... Grand Central on a current dual core Mac should be able to get performance at least on par with a current quad core PC.

Same as the old megahertz myth. A 300MHz PowerPC processor was faster than a 300 MHz x86 processor of the time. At least in Macs it was.

 

[iMacmatician]

So you're saying Grand Central is going to be optimized for Dual Core processing?

I would presume dual-core, quad-core, x-core.

It will not make your dual core Mac faster than a quad core PC in all instances.

Period.

I don't recall Tallest Skil saying that for all scenarios.

As for the Quad lappy, I won't expect that until late 2009 myself.

I wouldn't expect it until early 2010, but earlier would be good.

 

[SongEmu]

... you're so worried about cores, yet the industry is still just easing into the whole idea of 64-bit. And they were arguing about that years ago just like you are now about cores. It doesn't make all that much different right now.

The technology will mature when it matures. Until then, I think that you can spare another 3 minutes for your video render, or an extra .5 seconds for your app load times.

 

[NovemberMike]

What benchmarks are there that are can be applied between different operating systems? Aside from taking a stopwatch to program boots?... just curious...

You could probably use something reasonable simple like SuperPi. Really, anything that doesn't make use of OS specific functions (like DirectX) should give a decent comparison.

 

[CompUsed]

What about an updated Mac mini (or a replacement)?

Are Apple going back to their "if you want a Mac you have to spend one thousand dollars" mindset? It's not going to attract more switchers, that's for sure.

Well Apple lowered the price of the iPhone 3G to sell more (per Steve Jobs) so I think that a lower (much lower) price is in order for the Macbooks!

 

[SongEmu]

that's a faulty mindset. the cost is subsidized by AT&T.

would you like to subscribe to a pay-per-month plan for using a Macbook?

 

[Iam9376]

Which is what they are claiming Grand Central is going to be able to do.

Why is it that we can rebuff your comments with the same sentence over and over? Because no one knows anything yet. But yes... Grand Central on a current dual core Mac should be able to get performance at least on par with a current quad core PC.

Same as the old megahertz myth. A 300MHz PowerPC processor was faster than a 300 MHz x86 processor of the time. At least in Macs it was.

Perform what exactly?

The OS is not going to have significant gains in performance. Not in all areas. Period.

You use the same argument because apparently, you lack any real argument. What exactly is your programming background? Operating System level development? Multicore optimization research? What? Please share with the class.

Get a degree in Computer Engineering then come back to me and tell me how you're dual core mac is going to outperform heavily optimized PC operating systems such as Linux on a quad core machine for the same basic tasks.

Please do.

Optimized mulitcore aware applications perform significantly better.
Optimized multicore aware operating systems perform marginally better.
Optimized multicore aware operating system libraries increase performance marginally to significantly depending on application. Overall benefit. Negligible.

 

[Iam9376]

I would presume dual-core, quad-core, x-core.

Any developer worth anything will not develop towards a set number of cores unless this is a specific reason to do so. Such a case is undesirable in operating systems or their library backends.

I don't recall Tallest Skil saying that for all scenarios.

He made a blanket statement which was incorrect.

 

[Iam9376]

... you're so worried about cores, yet the industry is still just easing into the whole idea of 64-bit. And they were arguing about that years ago just like you are now about cores. It doesn't make all that much different right now.

The technology will mature when it matures. Until then, I think that you can spare another 3 minutes for your video render, or an extra .5 seconds for your app load times.

I'm sorry you live in a segment where 64bit and multicore computing is so new. However, outside of mac, Linux and Unix alike have been there for quite some time.


And there is significant difference where it counts: Multimedia.

 

[Stang68]

that's a faulty mindset. the cost is subsidized by AT&T.

would you like to subscribe to a pay-per-month plan for using a Macbook?

Exactly. The price of the iPhone 3G is NOT cheaper than the original one. They worked it out so that you actually pay MORE than what you did for the Edge version. Smart sons-of-bitches.

When the redesign for the MBP comes out, though, they will not charge more. Apple usually keeps the same price when they ugrade.

 

[diamond.g]

So you're saying Grand Central is going to be optimized for Dual Core processing?

Wow. Really?

The fact is dual core processors only have the advantage to quad core processors in a few instances. Over time as developers refine code, this will not be the case.

Grand Central is not going to be the end all miracle of SMP computing as you all are leading yourselves to believe. It will not make your dual core Mac faster than a quad core PC in all instances.

Period.

I don't have any thoughts as to how well Grand Central will work. I was just saying that that is what is getting claimed.

Which is what they are claiming Grand Central is going to be able to do.

Why is it that we can rebuff your comments with the same sentence over and over? Because no one knows anything yet. But yes... Grand Central on a current dual core Mac should be able to get performance at least on par with a current quad core PC.

Same as the old megahertz myth. A 300MHz PowerPC processor was faster than a 300 MHz x86 processor of the time. At least in Macs it was.

Grand Central is really really starting to sound like a scheduler. Which would basically be the only way to get a 2 Core CPU to be faster than a 4 Core one. Especially since IPC is going to (technically) be higher on the 4 Core CPU. The non-Grand Central compiled app would have to have a super crappy scheduler (basically everyone here would be admitting that Leopard has a crappy scheduler since it handles CPU calls) for the GC compiled one to be noticeably faster.
The mhz myth was busted back when AMD was pwning Intel (Athlon 64/XP vs P4). Besides, If AMD were to be able to get Phenom to scale I bet you would see Intel actually release much faster (clock speed wise) chips. Everyone that OC's knows that practically every Intel chip out (Core 2 line) can run at near 4 Ghz on air.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Grand Central will be to OS X what Nehalem will be to physical processor architecture.

The point is, unless you work for Apple and are bashing your own progress, you don't know what Grand Central will be able to do any more than a flea could paint A Starry Night. Meaning, also, of course, I don't know what Grand Central will be able to do, but I'd like to think that since Apple has already created computers that operate faster than their PC counterparts with "inferior" hardware, that they will be able to do what I've said should be done.

There's a famous signature here, I forget whose it is: "If I don't reply, you haven't won. It just means that I'm done."

 

[cromwell64]

Again, 11:00. "No later than 11:00" means 11:00, 10:59, 10:58, ...

Oh please. I said "by 11:00," which is the same as saying "no later than 11:00." Although it is not that big of a deal anymore now that I have seen that you have backtracked a little and offered up an article that states "in" 2009 and not "by" 2009.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Oh please. I said "by 11:00," which is the same as saying "no later than 11:00." Although it is not that big of a deal anymore now that I have seen that you have backtracked a little and offered up an article that states "in" 2009 and not "by" 2009.

I love it. Here we are having a ripping debate over the benefits and potential of Grand Central and in comes another post on what "by 2009" means.

I cracked up. MacRumors forever.