Core i7 (Nehalem) Based MacBook Pros Possible in Q4 2009?

[GRevolution]

Clarksfield could actually be a great chip for iMac since it is effectively the mobile version of Bloomfield. One thing Intel has been good about is creating feature parity between their mobile processors and desktop processors (at least the dual cores up until now). But I think Apple will put Lynnfield in the iMac. They are apparently working on a new cooling system which will allow them to put in standard desktop chips up to I'd imagine 95 watts. Remember, they fit the G5 in the iMac before, and that was without the lower vent.

Obviously Apple needs to get the iMac on desktop chips because the gap is growing, now the iMac is just not a good enough deal compared to other PCs, except all in ones. Apple really needs to make a mini tower between the Pro and iMac, something with an i7 that can slot between the octo-core Pro and the lower end quad core or mobile iMac.

Come to think of it, if Apple IS moving the Mac Mini to Atom processors, they could be positioning the iMac as a lower end model to make room for another desktop. Pipe dream, probably. But it would be a smart decision imo.

 

[Eidorian]

Some more reading here on Intel roadmaps.

 

[iMaggot]

Nooooooooooooo!, i just got my new MBP , oh well.

 

[andy721]

wow

why don't you cut the crap and put the real thing instead of all these processors you store up for years on end trying to make it seem like it's new if that is not true then holy Sh*t are we far behind technology.

 

[beginnersview]

I am planning on getting a high-end 24" iMac in the next update, but a message like yours worries me. Should I be? What model was yours?

AshMan,
My experience may, or not, apply to your new possible purchase.
I had the iMac G5, rev B (socalled) "Ambient Light Sensor" 2GHz model. Had to have the motherboard replaced because of overheating and capacitor plumping. And eventually, total non-functioning with more capacitor plumping but they would not cover it as it was at the end of the AppleCare 3yrs.
The heat sensor SW I was using was both Marcel Bresink's Temperature Monitor as well as , umm, (x-something? ... ) XRG, which put fans and temps in a column graph.
Anyway, the machine gave up and I could not resuscitate it. The HD though, even though it always registered at about 50-55 C, which WesternDigital spec'd as its upper limit, retained the data OK and was readable outside the iMac.
So I think heat problems are always going to be right at the barely manageable edge with Apple and iMacs.
With each iteration, they seem to think customers (or somebody) want thinner, hotter computers, and so they really don't make a casing that would allow cool running of powerful chips.
Which is nuts, since we know that heat is a major degrader/killer of electronic components...

(simulated advertisement: 'Yes, the new iMac, a faster, hotter chip, with a thinner case, just to keep everything nice and toasty inside. Doubles as a bread crisper if you put the slices on top!')

Having bought many iMacs over the years, I am rethinking my whole attachment to them, and when I get the cash together to replace the Mac, it may be a different model... who knows. (I am using a PC currently, Win XPPro for time being, which is OK since I do solo tech work on both Macs and PCs).

Hope this rambling helps your evaluation decision process.
BTW, if I was going to get an iMac, I too would go for the 24", partly because the smaller, low-end 20" model (remember when 20" was considered large) has definitely visibility issues with yellowing off-axis (at least in all cases I have checked personally). Make sure you do an in-person review of the screen and look at it from the angles you will typically be using in real life -- especially if you need to have more than one person viewing screen at same time.
Best.

 

[donbadman]

I honestly don't understand what the big deal is. Sure, a "desktop" class CPU in the iMac would be a welcome change. Apple really doesn't have any price room on the low end or the high end between the Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro to introduce a 4th model without cannibalizing sales of other models.

That said, I think 4 cores in a notebook would represent a significant boost in capabilities.

The Core i7's in question are going to be 2 cores with the same resurrection of hyperthreading as the current 4 core i7 processors - these new 32nm ones to go in the whackbooks are only 2 cores with 4 threads, not real quad core like the i7 45nm.

 

[michelepri]

Well I am a photographer with the new unibody macbook pro. After the color problems of this laptop with external monitors I am not sure I am ready to trust Apple again for my professional work. These laptops are expensive. I am very sorry to day this because I like Apple. I will probably get a Windows based laptop for work and use my Apple for free time and internet.

 

[poxonyou]

Well I am a photographer with the new unibody macbook pro. After the color problems of this laptop with external monitors I am not sure I am ready to trust Apple again for my professional work. These laptops are expensive. I am very sorry to day this because I like Apple. I will probably get a Windows based laptop for work and use my Apple for free time and internet.

Apple was the standard for graphic, photo, and video professionals, but they've been dropping the ball on the hardware. These users need power and want it when they pay a premium for Apple products, instead Apple seems more considered with industrial design and making that the reason people should pay a premium for Apple products. It's all lifestyle now, tying the hipness of their iPod with the Macbook. I think tying your product to a lifestyle is limiting it to a smaller market that is very unreliable, not to mention more people become anti-Apple when they think it's only for smug wanna-be hipsters. OS X is a better OS and their computers can be better overall as well. That's what they need to focus on. Providing the best product, not what they think the cool kids want. I think they could have grabbed a nice chunk of the dissatisfied Vista customers, but they didn't promote OS X. People only know a lifestyle association with the Mac now.

 

[iMacmatician]

Yes but these cpu's include other parts that were on the mother board. This might add more room for cooling

Clarksfield/Arrandale CPUs are 10 W hotter than "equivalent" Penryn CPUs due to this reason. But Clarksfield's TDPs are 45/55 W, so even accounting for that, most of them are still too hot.

Actually, seems those 65W quads are more expensive than the new, faster i7's.

Most are actually cheaper, although they are less powerful for the price.

It may be more practical to address the cooling issue in the iMac than to go with an older, slower, more expensive processor.

…which is why the iMac has used mobile CPUs these past 3 years? And extending the thermals from 55/65 W to 130 W is no small feat.

Think releasing Snow Leopard along with a Quad Core iMac line would make a powerful impact from a marketing standpoint. The other option, releasing a another Duo Core line, when Quad Core PCs are available for the same price, would probably turn some potential buyers off in this economy, and wouldn't really excite anyone.

They could do that with the 65 W quad-cores. Nehalem is still in the high-end and will be for a while.

If that was the route they were going to take, I'd think they would just update the processor on their current iMacs without much hoopla, which I think they've done before.

I think they were originally going to do a regular dual-core update in November, but then switched to quad-core and pushed the update back.

 

[jackfrost123]

Clarksfield/Arrandale CPUs are 10 W hotter than "equivalent" Penryn CPUs due to this reason. But Clarksfield's TDPs are 45/55 W, so even accounting for that, most of them are still too hot.

So would you say that for an ultra portable like the mba will the fact that they are hotter help or hinder things? If their integrated graphics are use in terms of heat and cooling noise maybe things will improve, but what if apple actually accommodates them with nvidia discrete graphics as in the rev. b of the mba, could this actually WORSEN thermal issues, that would BE HORRIBLE for something like the mba (and to our balls...lolol)

 

[iMacmatician]

Clarksfield could actually be a great chip for iMac since it is effectively the mobile version of Bloomfield. One thing Intel has been good about is creating feature parity between their mobile processors and desktop processors (at least the dual cores up until now).

Clarksfield is the mobile version of Lynnfield.

But I think Apple will put Lynnfield in the iMac. They are apparently working on a new cooling system which will allow them to put in standard desktop chips up to I'd imagine 95 watts. Remember, they fit the G5 in the iMac before, and that was without the lower vent.

The G5 was 49 W or something like that. I can see a low-power version of Lynnfield going into the iMac. The cooling system could be just to fit in the 65 W CPUs—we don't know if the iMac's current cooling can handle 55 W (current high-end iMac CPU TDP), 65 W, or something higher (unlikely).

Come to think of it, if Apple IS moving the Mac Mini to Atom processors, they could be positioning the iMac as a lower end model to make room for another desktop. Pipe dream, probably. But it would be a smart decision imo.

Basically this is one reason why my iMac differentiation hypothesis makes sense. The 20" iMac could stay low-cost (maybe back to the $999 price point), dual-core, and 9400M, and the 24" could go to 65 W quad-core and 9600M/9800M. Apple could even release a 28" iMac with the regular 95 W quad-cores (1 step or so faster than the 65 W ones) and a more powerful GPU.

So would you say that for an ultra portable like the mba will the fact that they are hotter help or hinder things?

Total system heat will be about the same. With Nehalem, parts from the chipset that consume 10 W will move to the CPU package. In the case of Arrandale it's the integrated GPU. I would say the heat wouldn't be as evenly distributed though.

 

[AidenShaw]

I would say the heat wouldn't be as evenly distributed though.

That could be an advantage - it could be easier with only one device to cool.

My laptop has this three-legged heat-pipe to reach the northbridge, the Nvidia Quadro, and the CPU.

 

[jackfrost123]

Total system heat will be about the same. With Nehalem, parts from the chipset that consume 10 W will move to the CPU package. In the case of Arrandale it's the integrated GPU. I would say the heat wouldn't be as evenly distributed though.

That could be an advantage - it could be easier with only one device to cool.

My laptop has this three-legged heat-pipe to reach the northbridge, the Nvidia Quadro, and the CPU.

That's true. Still they will include the nvidia too and that will generate another source of heat,unless they go with the integrated gpu core, which coming from intel should be sh...t. So having said all that I am really not all that excited, I was looking at something that could actually lower tdps for the ultra thin and by design tricky air and this clearly isn't (as much) the case here. What I fear the most is that the new cooling scenario presented here migth mean the rev. c air has again some major cooling flaws and/or inconsistencies in manufacturing and that again the rev b or c aka the rev d will be any good....

 

[poxonyou]

I think they were originally going to do a regular dual-core update in November, but then switched to quad-core and pushed the update back.

Hope so. Actually, if they don't, they'll be a joke to almost anyone with the slightest clue regarding the hardware common in most PCs now. "Hmmm...$1800 for a Duo 2 Core iMac or $1800 for a Quad Core with more L2 Cache or this new i7 quad core with L3 cache. Not sure what that means, but I do know more is usually better."

 

[AidenShaw]

Hope so. Actually, if they don't, they'll be a joke to almost anyone with the slightest clue regarding the hardware common in most PCs now. "Hmmm...$1800 for a Duo 2 Core iMac or $1800 for a Quad Core with more L2 Cache or this new i7 quad core with L3 cache. Not sure what that means, but I do know more is usually better."

$1800 for a quad Core i7 ?? Half that....

Dell Studio XPS $899

Preliminary Ship Date: 2/26/20092

• Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-Bit
• Intel® Core™i7-920 Processor(8MB L2 Cache, 2.66GHz)
• 1Yr Ltd Hardware Warranty, InHome Service after Remote Diagnosis
• 3GB DDR3 Tri-Channel SDRAM at 1066MHz - 3 DIMMs
• 500GB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
• 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
• ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB

http://www.dell.com/content/product...cs=19&~oid=us~en~29~desktop-xps-435mt_cto_1~~​

"with L3 cache" - LOL, I could see a salesman at Best Buy pushing the system "but this one has L3 cache, the others only have L2 !!"

 

[MikeTheC]

One of the benefits to us consumers in Apple's switch to x86 is that they no longer are in complete control of the hardware roadmap, which I believe was something that served as a legitimate detriment to us Mac users.

Hopefully, Apple will be "forced" into converting over to the new architecture, which means we will get performance updates as required by the industry, and not as "allowed" by Apple.

That's probably around the time I will be getting a new laptop, so, as the Cyber Leader from Dr. Who once observed, "This is excellent news..."

 

[rasmasyean]

One of the benefits to us consumers in Apple's switch to x86 is that they no longer are in complete control of the hardware roadmap, which I believe was something that served as a legitimate detriment to us Mac users.

Hopefully, Apple will be "forced" into converting over to the new architecture, which means we will get performance updates as required by the industry, and not as "allowed" by Apple.

That's probably around the time I will be getting a new laptop, so, as the Cyber Leader from Dr. Who once observed, "This is excellent news..."

It's going where the money is. Cheaper and more penetration vs. elegant and unique. The best thing Apple did for their computer sector (for shareholders...who count the most) is run Windows, which brought them back to life really. Otherwise, they would mostly be the "iPod company". You would have to admit that if it wasn't for the option to run Windows, half of the people wouldn't decide to get a Mac.

I think the processors are mostly useful for the Windows arena for the short term at least. You'll have the gamers, workstationers (CAD/scientific), and servers that will tax even the highest power ones. It will also allieviate more of the Vista overhead and allow it to run those super video graphics applications it claims to be able to support. Unless you are into heavy duty animation with your Mac, it prolly won't make a difference other than shortening your battery life for laptops.

 

[Eric S.]

You would have to admit that if it wasn't for the option to run Windows, half of the people wouldn't decide to get a Mac.

I would not have to admit that. I very much doubt that 50% of Mac owners run Windows on their Macs. And even of those who do, myself for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't still own a Mac, regardless of whether it ran Windows.

 

[Tallest Skil]

You would have to admit that if it wasn't for the option to run Windows, half of the people wouldn't decide to get a Mac.

Any, uh, actual data or numbers on that?

Because I remember Apple stating consistently from 2003 on that 50% of the people buying Macs had never used Macs before, and that's three years prior to the existence of Intel Macs or Boot Camp.

 

[rasmasyean]

I would not have to admit that. I very much doubt that 50% of Mac owners run Windows on their Macs. And even of those who do, myself for example, that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't still own a Mac, regardless of whether it ran Windows.

I'm just saying that to make a point.

If you are thinking of just the consumer sector, it might not matter that much. But chances are that if the laptop is for business (or partially), it either has Windows on it or was bought because it can install Windows if needed. You see even Microsoft presenters have Macs on the podium but run Powerpoint from Vista. This is so they can switch to different platforms easily while working on software for both (desktop and internet). Occasionally, you see a lot of PPT users (which is mostly on Windows) in presentations as such.

If they use OSX at home or 90% of the time, it doesn't matter. What made them get that is so that they CAN run Windows without having to use 2 machines.

 

[wonderbread57]

Hyperthreading? Wasn't that a 2004 thing? Please none of that pretend multi-core crap. Why do this when real quad cores exist?

 

[diamond.g]

Hyperthreading? Wasn't that a 2004 thing? Please none of that pretend multi-core crap. Why do this when real quad cores exist?

SMT isn't anything to sneeze at. Yeah having real quad core is nice, but having the ability to process 8 threads is nicer.

 

[wonderbread57]

SMT isn't anything to sneeze at. Yeah having real quad core is nice, but having the ability to process 8 threads is nicer.

Why is that nicer? Dual core with SMT is not 2x faster than then same Dual core without SMT. Also, a QUAD core without SMT is capable for 2x the performance (FLOPS/benchmarks) as a DUAL core with SMT. Right?

 

[NovemberMike]

Why is that nicer? Dual core with SMT is not 2x faster than then same Dual core without SMT. Also, a QUAD core without SMT is capable for 2x the performance (FLOPS/benchmarks) as a DUAL core with SMT. Right?

SMT helps in real world situations. IIRC, you are looking at twice the registers with the same amount of logic, you can still run code while something is coming in from the RAM (which can waste a significant amount of time).

 

[AidenShaw]

sometimes there is a free lunch

Originally Posted by wonderbread57
Why is that nicer? Dual core with SMT is not 2x faster than then same Dual core without SMT. Also, a QUAD core without SMT is capable for 2x the performance (FLOPS/benchmarks) as a DUAL core with SMT. Right?

SMT helps in real world situations. IIRC, you are looking at twice the registers with the same amount of logic, you can still run code while something is coming in from the RAM (which can waste a significant amount of time).

First of all - hyperthreading is almost free. It doesn't take many transistors to add a second logical CPU to a core. If it cost a bunch, then arguments against it would have more merit.

"n cores" with SMT are often better than "n cores" without SMT. It's not as good as "2*n cores" - but hey, it's free.

The memory example is a good one. Another simple example is if you are running two threads - one heavy on floating point computation, the other mainly integer.

Without SMT, one thread executes and the other is idle - then they swap. When the integer thread is running, the FP execution units aren't being used. When the FP thread is running, the integer units are idle.

With SMT, both execute at the same time - instead of one set of execution units being idle, both are in use. Not as good as two cores, but a whole lot cheaper.

And, for comparison with Pentium 4 hyper-threading, Nehalem has more execution units so this works even better - 12 units in fact.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/printpage/535/4
​