Apple Quietly Updates Entry-Level White MacBook

[thedudeAbides]

I think that by now Intel should have already broken the 3.0 GHz barrier. I mean, the last processors to reach those speeds were the Pentium 4's which almost reached 4 GHz.

Intel should really look into faster CPUs now that the FSB bottleneck is over in the new Nehalem architecture. I mean, its almost 2010 and we are still playing with 2.0 GHz CPUs? What the hell, we should have 2.8 GHz as a minimum now a days.

The GHz wars died with the Pentium 4. The clock speed is not the issue, the performance is, hence the AMD athalon chips could waste the P4's at a much lower clock speed. Intel adapted, abandoned its ambition for that elusive 4 GHz mark, and went toward the Core architecture.

And 4 GHz has been reached quite easily on the the Core 2 Duo chips with a straightforward overclock (no liquid nitrogen).

This transition away from very fast single threading is going to make way for slower, but much more efficient and productive, massive multi-threading. hence Nvidia pairing its 9400 gpu with the intel atom as a first step.

i am sure you know this, just reference for other readers

 

[AidenShaw]

what prohibits the use of DDR3 memory ?

Artificial product positioning?

 

[l84toff]

2.4 vs 2.0

The question I have is, what's faster:
2k8 top end MB - 2.4ghz at 800fsb with 2gb 667 ddr2 ram

OR

the new AMB with 2.0ghz 1066fsb 2gb ddr3 ram at 1066??

Trying to decide between the 2. Just ordered a refurb. black MB with those specs and am wondering if I should be getting the new AMB instead. (with the obvious previously stated differences). Average user with some video ripping/encoding.

Not trying to steal this thread but it seems kind of in line with the discussion.

 

[dubhe]

That is so true.... they left out Mini DP, it shouldn't have been that hard to put that on there, would it?

But, this is a consumer grade laptop, aimed at PC users who probably have an old display knocking about they would like to use. If you can afford to splash out for the new 24" apple display would you be buying this laptop?

 

[Teej guy]

Hilarious. 300 bucks less for Firewire.

 

[svndmvn]

Intel sells Core 2 Duo Mobile chips to 2.93 GHz - Apple just doesn't use them. http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=26548

Core 2 Extreme Mobile up to 3.06 GHz - this one can be found in the fastest Imac. http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=34520

the new 17" carries a 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB shared L2 cache, were you referring to something better?

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

The question I have is, what's faster:
2k8 top end MB - 2.4ghz at 800fsb with 2gb 667 ddr2 ram

OR

the new AMB with 2.0ghz 1066fsb 2gb ddr3 ram at 1066??

Trying to decide between the 2. Just ordered a refurb. black MB with those specs and am wondering if I should be getting the new AMB instead. (with the obvious previously stated differences). Average user with some video ripping/encoding.

Not trying to steal this thread but it seems kind of in line with the discussion.

Answer to your question it will be "B" the 1066 FSB with 2GB DDR3 ram at 1066.

 

[mrkgoo]

My guess comes from the fact that we really are hitting a serious roadblock in processor technology.

Take my iBook G4. 1.33 GHz. It's four years old, and less then 1 GHz behind this updated MB.

Now why is this? For one thing, it's getting harder to keep bumping up clock speed with the current technology we have. Too much heat. In the future there will be a solution I'm sure. But things have been slowing down a little bit lately as far as clock speed goes.

Second, people are figuring out that higher clock speed does not necessarily mean better performance, so chip companies have less of an incentive to bump those speeds up.

Hope I cleared that up for you.

Wait a minute ... did you just compare the speed of a PPC chip to a multicore Intel? Ooooh boy, here we go....

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Hilarious. 300 bucks less for Firewire.

I suspect that once this PolyCarb MB is opened it will show that the motherboard is the same as the Al-MB. However since the previous PolyCarb MB had a cutout or punch-out for FireWire there might have decided to keep it in.

I also believe that one can use DDR3 memory with this MB update, it all depends on the pin count.

 

[SkyBell]

Wait a minute ... did you just compare the speed of a PPC chip to a multicore Intel? Ooooh boy, here we go....

Alright, let's not get into this. My point is, clock speeds are not the most important factor when considering performance anymore, and therefore I don't think we'll be seeing 3 GHz in many laptops in the near future.

 

[Shivetya]

So I get the new board but get to keep firewire?

 

[BlizzardBomb]

I think that by now Intel should have already broken the 3.0 GHz barrier. I mean, the last processors to reach those speeds were the Pentium 4's which almost reached 4 GHz.

Intel should really look into faster CPUs now that the FSB bottleneck is over in the new Nehalem architecture. I mean, its almost 2010 and we are still playing with 2.0 GHz CPUs? What the hell, we should have 2.8 GHz as a minimum now a days.

Clock speed is definitely not everything. Over at Geekbench you'd find a Pentium 4 (with hyper-threading to run like two processing cores) at 3.6 GHz scoring less than 1800 points. Now a Core 2 Duo E8400 at 3 GHz will hit over 3300 points. If that's not enough the Core 2 Duo's TDP (Thermal Design Point) is almost half the Pentium 4's. If that's not improvement, I don't know what is. So we haven't really hit any sort of "wall" yet.

But anyway, this new MacBook is very nice, the .1 GHz drop looks bad on paper, but the 1066 MHz FSB will more than make up for that. Still waiting for it in UK though.

 

[jono_3]

i dunno im a fan of reliable $1000 mac notebook because its an easy recommendation to new switchers. they usually start looking at the low end and eventually end up purchasing something in the middle. whether or not theyre the same as the alum's inside doesnt really matter, the people buying these probably dont care about the difference

 

[l84toff]

Answer to your question it will be "B" the 1066 FSB with 2GB DDR3 ram at 1066.

Follow up question then. How significant is the increase in speed?

To go AMB I would be losing 90GB of HD space and adding about $160 in cost for the MB and a RAM upgrade to 4GB (I already have 4GB in the 667 variety to put into the BMB so it wouldn't add to the cost of the BMB).

 

[Eidorian]

Intel sells Core 2 Duo Mobile chips to 2.93 GHz - Apple just doesn't use them. http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=26548

Core 2 Extreme Mobile up to 3.06 GHz - this one can be found in the fastest Imac. http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=34520

I hate to tell you this but the iMac isn't using the X9100...

 

[akbc]

My guess comes from the fact that we really are hitting a serious roadblock in processor technology.

Take my iBook G4. 1.33 GHz. It's four years old, and less then 1 GHz behind this updated MB.

Now why is this? For one thing, it's getting harder to keep bumping up clock speed with the current technology we have. Too much heat. In the future there will be a solution I'm sure. But things have been slowing down a little bit lately as far as clock speed goes.

Second, people are figuring out that higher clock speed does not necessarily mean better performance, so chip companies have less of an incentive to bump those speeds up.

Hope I cleared that up for you.

Are you serious? PPC vs. Intel chips are like, totally different story.

And it's not only 1GHz behind.. It's more of 3GHz behind since this MB is dual core.. and considering Cache size, Bus speed and the overall efficiency, comparing a PPC chip to Intel chip is just ignorant and stupid.

So stop bringing ignorant opinions that's starting arguments in the thread... jeez.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

But, this is a consumer grade laptop, aimed at PC users who probably have an old display knocking about they would like to use. If you can afford to splash out for the new 24" apple display would you be buying this laptop?

Mini Display Port is fairly new. I remember when FireWire made its initial appearance on the PowerMac G3, there was hardly any uses for it other than what was offered by Apple. I suspect that the MDP will be the same, don't expect to use it for at least a year and the only manufacturer will be Apple with its usage.

Though Apple is offering the MDP free for usage by any 3rd part manufacturer, you have to factor in the market size for it and the additional cost. Along with the present economy situation it will be even harder to adopt if the economy is sliding. I predict another FireWire grave with the MDP, it servers it purposes however if the rest of the industry does not adopt it, well.

the new 17" carries a 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB shared L2 cache, were you referring to something better?

L2 cache is a key ingredient.

 

[BenRoethig]

I hate to tell you this but the iMac isn't using the X9100...

They're actually using a hybrid design half way between the desktop and notebook chips. You can think of them as a front runner to the new 65w small form factor quad cores.

 

[Wie Gehts]

Thats good. Now maybe I can think of getting a second nice new AFFORDABLE macbook WITH FW for my audio needs to keep safe and warm for home studio use and one to take out.

 

[Shaun.P]

Answer to your question it will be "B" the 1066 FSB with 2GB DDR3 ram at 1066.

Wait a minute, is that correct?

So this new white MacBook will be faster than my MBP (non-Unibody) 2.4Ghz 800Mhz FSB, 667 DDR RAM?

 

[Eidorian]

They're actually using a hybrid design half way between the desktop and notebook chips. You can think of them as a front runner to the new 65w small form factor quad cores.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=353588

Wait a minute, is that correct?

So this new white MacBook will be faster than my MBP (non-Unibody) 2.4Ghz 800Mhz FSB, 667 DDR RAM?

Yes the updated MacBooks are using the 1066 MHz front side bus. The RAM is still at the classic DDR2-667 though.

 

[terriyaki]

Damnit. My refurbished 2.2Ghz C2D SR Macbook doesn't seem as great a buy anymore.. ugh, and I just got it on Monday. Argh. Oh well, with the price difference I was able to max out the RAM and upgrade the HD.

I have a question, though. Just how significant is the jump up from the X3100 to the 9400? What does the 9400 offer that the X3100 doesn't? I've done some searches and have read about how in Snow Leopard things can be offloaded to the 9400 for better graphical performance. What does that mean exactly? I'm assuming the same can't be said for the X3100?

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Follow up question then. How significant is the increase in speed?

To go AMB I would be losing 90GB of HD space and adding about $160 in cost for the MB and a RAM upgrade to 4GB (I already have 4GB in the 667 variety to put into the BMB so it wouldn't add to the cost of the BMB).

Hard to say exactly, since it all depends on the daily applications and the data intensive those applications require. Websites claiming "X" amount of speed increase do not factor in other variables such as other applications running so the numbers are never accurate.

Simplicity: Think of FSB as a multi-lane highway (the higher the speed the more lanes you have and at higher speeds you can travel) and the speed of the processor as a vehicle (what ever exotic vehicle you prefer), you might have this speed demon of a vehicle, however if there is a traffic jam on that highway you are going nowhere fast.

 

[Eidorian]

Damnit. My refurbished 2.2Ghz C2D SR Macbook doesn't seem as great a buy anymore.. ugh, and I just got it on Monday. Argh. Oh well, with the price difference I was able to max out the RAM and upgrade the HD.

I have a question, though. Just how significant is the jump up from the X3100 to the 9400? What does the 9400 offer that the X3100 doesn't? I've done some searches and have read about how in Snow Leopard things can be offloaded to the 9400 for better graphical performance. What does that mean exactly? I'm assuming the same can't be said for the X3100?

9400M G is godly for mobile integrated graphics. If it had dedicated VRAM it'd be even better.

 

[svndmvn]

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=353588

Yes the updated MacBooks are using the 1066 MHz front side bus. The RAM is still at the classic DDR2-667 though.

since NVIDIA seems to work with 800MHZ DDR2, do you think it's possible for these white macbooks to work with that memory?
checking out the processors linked earlier I guess the next Alumacbooks could have a 2.26GHz and a 2.66GHz processor, I'm being really optimistic