Hopefully a new, fast ATI 4000 & 5000 series and not some renamed, 2 year old, bargain bin $50 Nvidia joke.
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.
First Intel Arrandale (MacBook Pro) Processors Due January 3rd?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hopefully a new, fast ATI 4000 & 5000 series and not some renamed, 2 year old, bargain bin $50 Nvidia joke.
I'm in the market for a new 13" MBP (goodbye Rev.A MacBook, you will *not* be missed!). This clinches it; I will be waiting until the next update.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Arrandale.22_.28ultra-low_voltage.3B_32_nm.29
To me the more interesting detail is the ultra low voltage i7 variant. At only 18w TDP besides being an Air candidate in 1Q2010 (January) it becomes a candidate for a SSD tablet as well.
Core i7-640UM
1200 MHz 2.26 GHz
500 MHz
2 x 256 KB
4 MB
DMI 9x
2 x DDR3-1066
18 W
µPGA-989
Q1 2010
$305
ATNN?
It seems to me like Steve's thing is "honey I shrunk the computer." You have the ever thinner MacBookPro, the Air, the Mini, the Cube, and lest we not forget the iPhone.
Since the Mini is now a dual drive server, the only thing keeping that thing from shrinking 50% tomorrow is loss of CD compatible form factor. With both air and USB CD's now in vogue, we could see a Mac-Nano now.
Core i7, SSD, Full OS 10.6.3, full wireless and headless, maybe a recharging base station with cables to elder accessories. Are we there yet?
Heads-up display of course.
Rocketman
To me the more interesting detail is the ultra low voltage i7 variant. At only 18w TDP besides being an Air candidate in 1Q2010 (January) it becomes a candidate for a SSD tablet as well.
Core i7-640UM
1200 MHz 2.26 GHz
500 MHz
2 x 256 KB
4 MB
DMI 9x
2 x DDR3-1066
18 W
µPGA-989
Q1 2010
$305
ATNN?
It seems to me like Steve's thing is "honey I shrunk the computer." You have the ever thinner MacBookPro, the Air, the Mini, the Cube, and lest we not forget the iPhone.
Since the Mini is now a dual drive server, the only thing keeping that thing from shrinking 50% tomorrow is loss of CD compatible form factor. With both air and USB CD's now in vogue, we could see a Mac-Nano now.
Core i7, SSD, Full OS 10.6.3, full wireless and headless, maybe a recharging base station with cables to elder accessories. Are we there yet?
Heads-up display of course.
Rocketman
All of the Arrandale CPUs will include integrated Intel GPUs. Nvidia won't be making any integrated video solutions for the i5/i7, so either these CPUs will go back to Intel GPUs or include discrete GPUs and not use the included Intel GPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrandale_(microprocessor)
Removing the optical drive would be nice. The extra space would allow for the spreading of the components like they did with the new iMacs.
Though I dont think they could go with a thinner case at this point, expect for tapering the edges, like in the MBA, but that would mean limiting the hardware inside. Since the HDD and optical drive are 9.5mm the case is pretty much set until SSDs can replace HDDs across the board making the maximum required internal height 7mm. Will be hard to get much thinner than that without some major technological changes.
These 32nm Core i7 "Arrandales" are dual-cores, but there are 45nm Core i7 Clarksfields" that are quad-core, but they have a TDP of 45W, which an Extreme version at 55W. They simply arent the best choice.
They are to be released in Q1-2010, as well. The MBA currently uses a LV C2D, but I hope that they go with an ULV-Ci7. The saving on power will get the battery duration much higher than it is now without sacrificing performance over the current version.
You may want to wait awhile longer, these Arrandale CPUs aren't that much faster than Core2 CPU(mobile i7s are only 2 core), they include Intel GPUs, and they aren't going to help with battery life. I wouldn't expect anything significantly better than the current macbooks for awhile. It's possible AMD will catch up again.
Not sure how you are coming up with that conclusion. You have to keep the desktop and workstation market in mind. AMD is in NO WAY 'catching' up to Intel. Intel is releasing a Nehalem-based 6 Core CPU with Hyper Threading (Gulftown) that will completely take over the hardcore enthusiast market while the new affordable Nehalem-based i5/i7 CPU's (Lynnfield) is gobbling up the mainstream enthusiast market. Currently, i7 9xx CPU's (Bloomfield) dominate the enthusiast market and AMD is REALLY losing the mainstream market because of Intel's Lynnfield, and we all know who dominates the laptop market (Surprise, its Intel). AMD's biggest, most profitable area right now is the server market. The fact is, they produce power house server CPU's that get the job done at a cheaper cost than Intel's offering. Spread that into the lower end desktops and notebooks and thats all AMD really has.
and let's go crazy and say USB 3.0(intel is not ready for usb 3 but maybe apple goes to nec as they have usb 3 controllers
I really hope that they do include USB3.0 but Intel waiting until 2011 and Apple still in with FireWire makes me skeptical. The only nuggets of hope is that Asus, who often makes Apples logic boards, already has been producing boards with USB3.0 on them and waiting another year until 2011 for something youll inevitably support doesnt seem like a smart move for iDevices that really could use the sync speed this summer with the refresh.
Now stop that you!! hahaha
Glad to finaly see some fresh front page rumour news on these at last!! I was begining to wonder. Well when I've saved the money it'll be the 15" 2.66 for me as IMO that will be the top end BTO model, with a 320GB SSD please and an ATI 5000 series (I hope??)
Also they will be making them properly by the time I have the cash for one.
Clarksfield has been released, but it's a power hog(45W vs 25W). These Arrandale CPUs will have 25W versions, which is what Apple currently uses, but are FAR slower than the Clarksfield. Personally, I would be more excited to see some high-end Clarksfield macbooks that have less battery life than these low-end i7/i5 CPUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrandale_(microprocessor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarksfield_(microprocessor)
Mine's not even a C2D, it's just a CoreDuo. Pretty much anything at this point will be a lot faster!
i7 in a laptop would be sweet.
Of course Dell already has these...
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/core_i7_systems/fs.aspx?refid=core_i7_systems
But they are "Clarksfield" chips.
Of course Dell already has these...
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/core_i7_systems/fs.aspx?refid=core_i7_systems
But they are "Clarksfield" chips.
check wikipedia
if tou want the actual i7 get a clevo the battery life will last atleast 1hour
Arrandale IS Clarkdale. Clarkdale is the desktop version, Arrandale is the mobile version. Notebook-targeted CPU's nowadays will be inferior to its desktop variant for obvious reasons, power consumption being the #1 reason. I want Lynnfield CPU's to come to MacBooks. Quad core dammit!!!!!
I think I'll put off my Mac upgrade until mid January and see what the rumour mills are churning out then.
I think there is a strong chance of an upgrade. But Apple may have to add discrete graphics to make up for the Intel Integrated Graphics. Luckily that won't require too much more board space because the new Intel IO hub is quite small.
There could be a cheaper MacBook with an i3 and Intel Graphics only, if Apple feel brave (unlikely, to be fair).
I think there is a strong chance of an upgrade. But Apple may have to add discrete graphics to make up for the Intel Integrated Graphics. Luckily that won't require too much more board space because the new Intel IO hub is quite small.
There could be a cheaper MacBook with an i3 and Intel Graphics only, if Apple feel brave (unlikely, to be fair).
Where's the improvement?
How will these new chips be better than the C2D, besides the Turbo Boost? When I look at them all I see is a slightly more efficient C2D. What's the improvement? Why aren't they quad-core? The clock speed surely hasn't changed or has gotten worse, and TB seems more like a tiny boost. I don't get how these dual-core are any different than the C2D.
How will these new chips be better than the C2D, besides the Turbo Boost? When I look at them all I see is a slightly more efficient C2D. What's the improvement? Why aren't they quad-core? The clock speed surely hasn't changed or has gotten worse, and TB seems more like a tiny boost. I don't get how these dual-core are any different than the C2D.