Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Core i7 (Nehalem) Based MacBook Pros Possible in Q4 2009?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Speaking personally, I disagree. Since I have to get to the location I'd prefer something thin and light but with sufficient power to get the job done, which is why I like the MacBook Pro. I don't need a "portable" supercomputer, particularly with the weight restrictions present on airlines these days.
Woah!
Did anyone bother to read the actual presentation they gave?
It's here if you're interested: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=668
They show 45nm clarksfield 4 core mobile AND the new 32 nm 2 core mobile processors being offered side-by-side in late 2009.
It's much more likely that they're going to go with a higher core-count in macbook pros: they want higher power, and they don't care about the on-die graphics of the 32nm unit.
Did anyone bother to read the actual presentation they gave?
It's here if you're interested: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=668
They show 45nm clarksfield 4 core mobile AND the new 32 nm 2 core mobile processors being offered side-by-side in late 2009.
It's much more likely that they're going to go with a higher core-count in macbook pros: they want higher power, and they don't care about the on-die graphics of the 32nm unit.
I know that was a joke, but I seriously bring my iMac to school with me all the time...just check out the pile of crap on the left!!! 
Yes I need a MacBook Pro.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I think Tom's Hardware is assuming Apple won't use Clarksfield and will pick Arrandale instead because of heat (TDP).
Exactly. Many are still waiting for iMacs to get the rumored quad cores...which were released at the end of last year. Clearly, Apple doesn't rush out and put new Intel processors into their machines as soon as Intel releases them, so all this salivating over Q4 2009 Core i7 MBPs is a waste of perfectly good saliva...unless you want to spit on these types of rumors.
support vs. optimized
A 4 thread chip will look like 4 CPUs to the OS, so yes it is supported. It will think that it has a quad chip.
With threaded CPUs, you will want the OS to optimize the scheduling of jobs on the logical CPUs.
You have 4 logical CPUs - two on one core, two on the other.
When scheduling running threads - if you have two active threads, you'd want one thread on either logical CPU on core 0, and the other thread on either logical CPU on core 1.
If you have only 1 active thread, it doesn't matter where you run them. If you have 3 or 4 active threads, it doesn't matter where you run them.
If you have 3 or 4 threads running, then it drops back to 2 threads, the OS should move one of the two threads if they happen to be on the same core. (This should be done after some delay, since there's a cost to moving a thread. You'd want a few milliseconds or so of the sub-optimal scheduling before moving it.)
Having explained that, though, I don't know if any version of OSX is optimized for multi-threaded cores.
Nehalem should be better, it has more execution units and therefore more opportunities for hyper-threading to help.
A 4 thread chip will look like 4 CPUs to the OS, so yes it is supported. It will think that it has a quad chip.
With threaded CPUs, you will want the OS to optimize the scheduling of jobs on the logical CPUs.
You have 4 logical CPUs - two on one core, two on the other.
When scheduling running threads - if you have two active threads, you'd want one thread on either logical CPU on core 0, and the other thread on either logical CPU on core 1.
If you have only 1 active thread, it doesn't matter where you run them. If you have 3 or 4 active threads, it doesn't matter where you run them.
If you have 3 or 4 threads running, then it drops back to 2 threads, the OS should move one of the two threads if they happen to be on the same core. (This should be done after some delay, since there's a cost to moving a thread. You'd want a few milliseconds or so of the sub-optimal scheduling before moving it.)
Having explained that, though, I don't know if any version of OSX is optimized for multi-threaded cores.
Nehalem should be better, it has more execution units and therefore more opportunities for hyper-threading to help.
You pretty much wrote what I was going to say. Now that Apple has re-targeted their product line to appeal to those who are using their computers are DVD players and the web the need for speed has gone away. What would they do with four cores? Watch a 190 minute movie in 80 minutes?
I'm hoping now that Steve is gone there will be other voices at Apple and they will change their direction. It sure was headed the wrong way.
Wow, that was an incredibly generic article. Replace the word Apple with any other company and you got a completely new article. It's like saying 10 MP camera on iPhone possible in 2010, when that's just pure speculation and ANY company could release a 10 MP cameraphone.
Speed bumps?
I would like to see an alternative to traditional speed bumps. I would like to see the next update(s) have dual internal drive hook-ups so when dual indy platter HD's and SSD drives are available, we can have internal RAID ready devices with some legs.
I would also like to see the ROM's able to address more physical ram than is currently technically practical by a generation or perhaps two. While RAM at max capacity is typically cost prohibitive when a new CPU is released, it is a short time for the cost to drop and the next generation to arrive so hardware only a year or two into their 5-6 year life cycle can practically use it.
I would like to see a focus on high bandwidth I/O, such as FW 3200, USB3, 100 GB Ethernet, eSATA and other interfaces so the usefulness of the "old" device remains well after the customer has upgraded to "new" as Apple loves for the next generation, as we all do because the newer stuff is just better.
Rocketman
I would like to see an alternative to traditional speed bumps. I would like to see the next update(s) have dual internal drive hook-ups so when dual indy platter HD's and SSD drives are available, we can have internal RAID ready devices with some legs.
I would also like to see the ROM's able to address more physical ram than is currently technically practical by a generation or perhaps two. While RAM at max capacity is typically cost prohibitive when a new CPU is released, it is a short time for the cost to drop and the next generation to arrive so hardware only a year or two into their 5-6 year life cycle can practically use it.
I would like to see a focus on high bandwidth I/O, such as FW 3200, USB3, 100 GB Ethernet, eSATA and other interfaces so the usefulness of the "old" device remains well after the customer has upgraded to "new" as Apple loves for the next generation, as we all do because the newer stuff is just better.
Rocketman
You are right - some people do value portability, and will compromise on power and features for that. I was thinking more along the lines of professionals who already have an extra Pelican case or two for their photo/audio/video gear. Whether the MacBook is 7 lbs or 11 lbs won't matter to them.
In any event, the "MacBook Pro" and the "MacBook Workstation" should both be offered.
What happened with the P4HTs? I had one in my old dell. It seemed to work perfect. Is there a back story that I don't know about?
If you truly mean 100G Ethernet you're going to have to wait a long long time. I don't know if I can stress the "long" part enough.
If you mean 10G ethernet, you're mad. You probably don't use much of your 1G ethernet as it is. For comparison, ADSL is 24Mb, or 2.4% of 1G ethernet.
1G is a staggering amount of bandwidth.
I'm saving for a MB and if they make an i7 MB then I will be 'Uber Smiley!'
I was going to build my own i7 PC but couldn't resist
I was going to build my own i7 PC but couldn't resist
It's amazing their updating their line again already, it seems like the aluminium macs were released only yesterday.
As far as I can recall, the MBP has never been behind the iMac in terms of its processor, if the iMac goes quad core with the next update, the MBP will also.
This works for me, it's going to be about 6 months to a year before I can afford my next laptop, core i7 should be out/nearly out then, just in time for me to pick one up. I may even hold out for the quad's if they do release a dual first, as I don't want to be stuck with the lemon of the i7 family (think core solo MB's and how left out they get in terms of software requirements etc, (yes, I know they are 32bit to core2's 64))
This works for me, it's going to be about 6 months to a year before I can afford my next laptop, core i7 should be out/nearly out then, just in time for me to pick one up. I may even hold out for the quad's if they do release a dual first, as I don't want to be stuck with the lemon of the i7 family (think core solo MB's and how left out they get in terms of software requirements etc, (yes, I know they are 32bit to core2's 64))
