Server Nehalems are supposedly due out this year Q4, and you missed out the fact that a Mac Pro would have 32 Logical cores from 16 Physical because of Hyper-Threading (and that's assuming the board will be DP and not 4 Processors.)
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.
Early Version of Intel's Nehalem Benchmarked, Much Faster than Penryn
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Server Nehalems are supposedly due out this year Q4, and you missed out the fact that a Mac Pro would have 32 Logical cores from 16 Physical because of Hyper-Threading (and that's assuming the board will be DP and not 4 Processors.)
You see, there is a method to the madness. I'll use the time to convince the Mrs. to dump her HP, and take my Penryn MBP. She claims she doesn't like Mac. She's used to Windoze. Well, she can have both, or choose one or the other. Faster. Bigger HD. No hiccups playing those annoying little games she likes. Let's not even mention the iSight and iLife. She'll love it. Then I'll promptly go out and get myself the Nehalem MBP. Plan for every contingency.
נהלם (Nehalem) is one of those cool hebrew words with a bunch of meanings.
I thing the most likely one is "to make orderly" or "to increase efficiency".
I'll be living in Israel next year, so i can update you on it when my hebrew gets a bit better.
UGH! Another Mac update in the Fall, there's ALWAYS going to be a new Intel processor, so my SR MacBook Pro will go down in value.. again!
I hear you, processor core(s), speed, etc... is just a routine update. Processors will always get faster with one or more features or cores to make the deal enticing, it is expected.
So when news as such is posted about a new processor, it does not surprise at all, since it has become the norm and getting rather boring. Do I really care what percentage faster it is when compared to the old, it is going to be faster no doubt. I do however care how much time a movie SD or HD 1.3-2.0 hours will take to encode, this way I can gage a lot more than giving me a percentage, which really translates into nothing.
It is possible to do the calculation and knowing well enough that all the numbers will be skewed since nothing is certain is a given. However entertain the possibility.
The processor could be called "migot" and I could care less. These naming schemes with intel are getting confusing for others to keep track of when having a conversation.
I say stick to a name and a number, these code and brand naming scheme are making tech nerds of us all when having a conversation. And they though Mac users were into design. We are starting to sound similar to Linux group, what is wrong with us?
January 2009 is a realistic date for Apple to start talking about rolling it out across their range.
From the info I could get:
- Xeon (Mac Pro) and high-end desktop cpus (not used by Apple, yet) will be available in Q4 2008, along with the associated chipsets. So a Nehalem-based Mac Pro could indeed be announced at MWSF 2009.
- Mainstream desktop parts (not used by Apple, yet) and mainstream mobile parts (MB, MBP, iMac, Mac mini, MBA) will be available STARTING Q3 (not Q2, as previously rumored)
- TDP for most cpus, will be higher than penryn ones, due to the integrated memory controller and other components, but the chipset will be, in most cases, reduced to one chip instead of two, so the TDP of the overall platform will not change much.
Xeon, DP, workstations:
- Gainestown cpus (similar to Bloomfield), dual Tylersburg 36D chipset
High-end Desktop cpus:
- Bloomfield, quad-core, 2.66GHz ($316), 2.93GHz ($530), 3.20GHz ($999)
Mainstream Desktop cpus:
- Lynnfield, quad-core, Ibexpeak PCH chipset, $200-$600
- Havendale, dual-core + integrated graphics, Ibexpeak PCH chipset, $80-$300
High-end Mobile cpus:
- Clarksfield 55W, quad-core, Calpella chipset, $850 and $1050
Mainstream Mobile cpus:
- Clarksfield 45W, quad-core, Calpella chipset, $650
- Auburndale 45W, dual-core+integrated graphics, Calpella chipset, $300-650
- Auburndale 35W, dual-core+integrated graphics, Calpella chipset, $200-400
Maybe because the Mainstream Nehalem chips have been pushed in Q3, there will be a penryn speedbump late Q4/early Q1. For example in the mobile front:
- 35W Q9100, mobile 2.26GHz quad-core $850
- 35W T9600 2.80GHz - T9800, 2.93GHz dual-core $530
- 35W T9400 2.53GHz - T9XX0, 2.66GHz dual-core $316
- 25W P9500 2.53GHz - P9XX0, 2.66GHz dual-core $348
- 25W P8600 2.40GHz - P8700, 2.53GHz dual-core $241
- 25W P8400 2.26GHz - P8600 2.40GHz dual-core $209
- Xeon (Mac Pro) and high-end desktop cpus (not used by Apple, yet) will be available in Q4 2008, along with the associated chipsets. So a Nehalem-based Mac Pro could indeed be announced at MWSF 2009.
- Mainstream desktop parts (not used by Apple, yet) and mainstream mobile parts (MB, MBP, iMac, Mac mini, MBA) will be available STARTING Q3 (not Q2, as previously rumored)
- TDP for most cpus, will be higher than penryn ones, due to the integrated memory controller and other components, but the chipset will be, in most cases, reduced to one chip instead of two, so the TDP of the overall platform will not change much.
Xeon, DP, workstations:
- Gainestown cpus (similar to Bloomfield), dual Tylersburg 36D chipset
High-end Desktop cpus:
- Bloomfield, quad-core, 2.66GHz ($316), 2.93GHz ($530), 3.20GHz ($999)
Mainstream Desktop cpus:
- Lynnfield, quad-core, Ibexpeak PCH chipset, $200-$600
- Havendale, dual-core + integrated graphics, Ibexpeak PCH chipset, $80-$300
High-end Mobile cpus:
- Clarksfield 55W, quad-core, Calpella chipset, $850 and $1050
Mainstream Mobile cpus:
- Clarksfield 45W, quad-core, Calpella chipset, $650
- Auburndale 45W, dual-core+integrated graphics, Calpella chipset, $300-650
- Auburndale 35W, dual-core+integrated graphics, Calpella chipset, $200-400
Maybe because the Mainstream Nehalem chips have been pushed in Q3, there will be a penryn speedbump late Q4/early Q1. For example in the mobile front:
- 35W Q9100, mobile 2.26GHz quad-core $850
- 35W T9600 2.80GHz - T9800, 2.93GHz dual-core $530
- 35W T9400 2.53GHz - T9XX0, 2.66GHz dual-core $316
- 25W P9500 2.53GHz - P9XX0, 2.66GHz dual-core $348
- 25W P8600 2.40GHz - P8700, 2.53GHz dual-core $241
- 25W P8400 2.26GHz - P8600 2.40GHz dual-core $209
So is it worth waiting?
If Ive been wanting to buy a mac for a while now and have finally saved enough money, should I just get one or should I wait till next year? or the next back to school iPod deal or whatever? Feel like I just keep waiting. Worth it?
If Ive been wanting to buy a mac for a while now and have finally saved enough money, should I just get one or should I wait till next year? or the next back to school iPod deal or whatever? Feel like I just keep waiting. Worth it?
So, what's the problem? Why do people get processor (penis) envy at whatever new comes out? It's not like your machine suddenly stops working at doing useful tasks. Hey I can post to macrumors.com forums 25% faster now!UGH! Another Mac update in the Fall, there's ALWAYS going to be a new Intel processor, so my SR MacBook Pro will go down in value.. again!
A computer is not an investment. Go buy some Apple stock if you're looking for something to hold its value (or make money).
Well you can wait until next year... or the year after.. or the year after. The computer industry is a moving train—you either make the jump and get on or sit on the tracks watching as the next car goes by. If you want/need it, go buy it. Get the midlevel 24" iMac—it just got updated recently.
I am...
.. going to rock the Penryn MBP until there is a case redesign and internal components update like chipset, SSD and blu ray drive. That = year 2009
.. going to rock the Penryn MBP until there is a case redesign and internal components update like chipset, SSD and blu ray drive. That = year 2009
Not worth waiting. Here is how I would look at the situation: You have the money to buy your first Macintosh. It won't be your last. In three or four years, you will buy another one. Then another one somewhere between six and eight years from now. And so on. You will always buy a better one by waiting longer, but you will always have a less good one while you are waiting. Buying a Mac at any time means you have a faster Mac, and less money in your pocket. So whenever you think "I would be overall happier with a faster Mac and less money", that is when you buy.
The only exception is that it is unwise to buy just before a predictable product change. For example, WWDC starts next Monday. There are reasonable chances that something new will be announced, so going to a shop today or tomorrow would be unwise. If there is anything new, you will know on Wednesday so wait until then. If a new product comes out, you either can buy the latest and brand new product, _or_ you will probably find the current product in the refurbished section for significantly less money.
Everything said, don't wait a year for Nehalem.
It's been said a billion times over and over, but it's true. You will *ALWAYS* just be waiting for the next revision. Apple and every other hardware company are in a constant state of revision.
No, don't wait, you need to just get whatever it is you've already been waiting for and ENJOY it!
I did this about a month ago with a new 15" MBP 2.4 and I love it. I really (seriously) wouldn't care if a new machine came out today. This is a great machine that'll last me years to come. My last Apple purchase, a 2002 iBook G3 800 (running Tiger) is still being used daily by my girlfriend as her internet / email while sitting on the couch machine.
Quit waiting and start using.
Wayne
depends on what you do. I'm sure many people do not even max out the processing power of the current chips.
Aint that the same every time a new processor comes out ;-), in practice i'm always a little dissapointed to be honest, last time i went from a G5 dual 2,7 to a macpro 8core 2,6 , it was not as big a diffrent as i expected. Maybe if they would optimize programs to actualy use those 8 cores maybe then i would be impressed, i keep hoping ;-).
Any word on operating temperatures? That's really the key in my opinion - because of cooling issues. Does it slow down when it gets hot? How hot does it get? The last PC I had with a quad core in it had so many fans that I had to have an 850 watt power supply to run them all.
Rich
what did you do? I have a Q6600 OC'd to 3 gigahertz only have 3 case fans and a stock heatsink and its only 65 degrees c under full load.
Lets first say, there is no point to wait. If u want to play a game, do it now, or else u will forever wait for the next upgrade.
But here are my 2 points on this occasion:
1. Typically modern (3D) games utilize the horsepower of the VGA way more than the CPU. There was an article on Tom's Hardware on this issue exactly a few days ago. The only part of the game the CPU exclusively does right now is the physics, but that's a minority on PC Games. 200 euros on a better VGA are better spent than 200euros on a better CPU.
2. Nehalem is not about the CPU only, its a major change in the whole platform. Even if the CPU itself is (lets say) 20% faster than a Core2 at the same speed, the in-game gains will be larger cause of the plenty memory bandwidth (and low latencies) for the VGA to exploit. Right now the PCI Express 2.0 bus is pretty useless, even if u compare it to AGP, the difference is minimal, and thats because the platform can't feed the VGA fast enough.
So yeah, Nehalem will be a big deal for games, or at least more of a big deal than it would traditionally be. That being said, there are upcoming game engines that could make the platform speed irrelevant, like the one demo'ed from ID games on the last MacWorld. But I wouldn't count on an immediate industry-wide adoption of such technologies any time soon.
I was going to replace my Merom/Napa MacBook with a Penryn/Montevina but looking at the results I might keep the old beast going for another year and get the Nehalem/Calpella. It looks like its going to be worth the wait.
The difference with Nehalem is that is moves from an outdated bus system for the processors to address the RAM to Quickconnect which essentially matches up the processors to the ram directly.
If you have time this review/technical background article from ars is a very good background to the new technology being implemented.
Yeah, that's my mistake. I didn't even really notice, it makes sense that Mac Pro's would use the DP and not the MP. I think I was just swayed by the fact that it uses FB-DIMM's, which is what the Mac Pro's currently use. Either way, I'm hoping for a quad-core MacBook Pro 17". Even if they do a redesign (which would actually make more sense when they start introducing quad-cores along with a redesign), I'm waiting for Nehalem.
Looking at mjteix's comment, it looks like they might save the quad-core for the high-end stuff like the 17" MBP, $650 is a lot for a processor. I just see it as another dividing factor between the Professional MacBook Pro and the consumer MacBook.
If you have time this review/technical background article from ars is a very good background to the new technology being implemented.
That Ars article is very, very interesting, especially if you are just a little bit technically saavy. One misconception I think, is that QuickPath will not be on all processors, just desktop and servers. It's competition is HyperTransport, which is used by AMD, as a connector between the physical processing cores.
This is a little bit different the Integrated Memory Controller, which is going to be a big deal all around. The mobile processors still have the IMC, which is good. QuickPath is illustrated on the right hand picture and is the gray paths connecting each processing core.
I think that Intel is wanting to phase out FB-DIMMs. It does smart a little if you planned on transferring memory to the new Mac Pro though.
I understand that Leopard scales quite well with more processors (16+), is this true?
Thanks for the link, FSB is out ( whichalways was a bottle neck ) so maybe this actually might make a real diffrence.
The difference with Nehalem is that is moves from an outdated bus system for the processors to address the RAM to Quickconnect which essentially matches up the processors to the ram directly.
If you have time this review/technical background article from ars is a very good background to the new technology being implemented.
Nope
Happy I bought when I did. After reading about Nehalem, I decided it wasnt worth waiting till next yr for it. (8 More months till release, no thx) I was looking a buying my first Mac in Dec 07. I waited about 2 months for the Pen. MBP. but thats as long as I wanted to wait. Past few months i've learned alot and got alot done. If your looking for your first Mac, waiting till next yr is stupid. If your computer is fine for now, then yea, waiting till next yr might be ok. But in noway would I sell my Pen. MBP to get the Nehalem one next yr. Just not that big a deal to me.
I'm targeting 2010 for my next major Mac purchase. That will be the yr
Then those that bought in 2009 will be kicking themselves in the ASS 