Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Scott6666

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2008
1,482
911
35W are going to make the fans run like little airplanes running all the time.

Now the MBP's can sound like the Airs. Oh joy.

I say that they Apple uses the Low-Voltage models or ULV models. 25W is much more palatable unless Apple throws in free earplugs for the user - and immediate family.
 

DeepIn2U

macrumors G5
May 30, 2002
12,819
6,875
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Either way whatever the configurations this will be good for consumers, K12 deployments (cheaper Unibody MB), and may pre-order a significant amount to satisfy developers before Q1'10 comes around end of January. Maybe then investors will silent be satisfied on $208+ Share price on the Nasdaq.

Still it'll be sometime before I get in on this joy train. Maybe rev.B. :(
 

wizard

macrumors 68040
May 29, 2003
3,854
571
Close but I'd ix that up just a bit.

I'll but it. Give us no optical drive and two hdd bays or a thinner laptop and I'm sold. Maybe even dual GPUs in 13" with an upgraded GPU anyway

Yes get rid of the optical drive which is virtually useless. But the arrangement of the drives needs to take into account modern needs. That Modern need is for solid State Storage which right now means Flash.

Now I'm not talking Flash in the same old legacy mechanical format and silly SATA interface. What I want to see in the new laptop is one slot for a conventional high capacity magnetic drive and then slots for at least two Solid State Storage daughter cards. These daughter cards would interface over the latest rev of PCI-Express and one would be supplied with the machine for OS storage and apps storage, user data would go to the rotating media.

The Hope here is that Apple could benefit from the fast SSD for boot and app performance while keeping bulk storage relatively cheap. The thought is that 256 GB of SSD would be enough for most user as far as app storage goes. With data on rotating media the SSD should last a very long time due to being primarily a read only drive. That is apps get install and for the most part you don't see much in the way of change happening on the SSD. This might actually simplify the design of the SSD controller, making the storage both cheaper and faster.

Thanks
Dave
 

iMacmatician

macrumors 601
Jul 20, 2008
4,249
55
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.
Code:
Base      Turbo
2.40 GHz  2.93 GHz
2.53 GHz  3.07 GHz
2.67 GHz  3.33 GHz

Turbos are up to 20%-25%.
 

flottenheimer

macrumors 68000
Jan 8, 2008
1,515
627
Up north

gianly1985

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2008
798
0
Whishlist for the next Macbook Pro 13":
- Arrandale
- Ati 5xxx (codename: Park) (---> it's possible TDP-wise)
- no optical drive, dual HDD bay (---> excellent for HDD+SSD hybrid setups)
- even better battery life (thanks to 32nm cpus)
- NO 16:9 ratio
- NO changes in resolution of any model (13", 15", 17")


Dream:
- IPS panels (it actually happened in a few laptops, IBM I think, a couple of years ago)
 

wizard

macrumors 68040
May 29, 2003
3,854
571
Actually I think just the opposite.

Does this info still lead people to believe that Arrandale will only be used in the 15" and 17" models?

Arrandale is likely to be used in the lower end hardware. Think about what in integrated into the chip and you will realize that that 35 watts isn't that bad other than being a point load. That is the total power used compared to the older hardware is likely to be lower.

Not that I have hard numbers here but the GPU and hub of old designs do add significantly to the power budget of the low end laptops. It is the overall power budget of the new machine that you need to be concerned with and the cooling of the point load.

As tot he 17" model I would suspect hat Apple would go to a high performance solution. This might or might not be Arrandale as I've heard rumors of Arrandales that come without the built in GPU.

Dave
 

student_trap

macrumors 68000
Mar 14, 2005
1,879
0
'Ol Smokey, UK
Yes get rid of the optical drive which is virtually useless. But the arrangement of the drives needs to take into account modern needs. That Modern need is for solid State Storage which right now means Flash

i like the dvd drive, I travel frequently and its great to be able to grab a dvd to pass the time. I literally do this weekly.
 

skate71290

macrumors 6502a
Jan 14, 2009
556
0
UK
oo saving pennies for a new apple laptop, not sure whether to refresh my air, or save up for 15" powerhouse :D
 

AidenShaw

macrumors P6
Feb 8, 2003
18,667
4,676
The Peninsula
Isnt i7 mobile chip already release on window laptop? So are window i7 different from the i7 that is due in jan?

Yes, quad core mobile Core i7 laptops are here or almost here (said to ship in November, I haven't seen any confirmation that they're readily available).

These use the Clarksfield45nm mobile Core i7 CPU.

Arrandale is a 32nm dual core part.

So yes, the Windows Core i7 mobile chips are different from the upcoming chip. The HP Envy (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/11/16/review_laptop_hp_envy_15/) is one such system.
 

wizard

macrumors 68040
May 29, 2003
3,854
571
My Guess is it means nothing initially, but...

Can anyone tell me what this means for the Macbook Air? When will the Air-compatible processors be available? I just bought a Macbook Air last night... might be able to cancel?

The qualification here is that Apple might go with a low speed Arandale if the over all power budget is lower. However it doesn't look like Intel will initially release a the low power models. As to AIR I'd cancel anyways but that is me, I really don't think much of that model. Apple could redeem themselves with an overhauled AIR or they could simply cancel the unit outright.

Dave
 

stylewriter

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2004
51
0
Johnson City, TN
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.

Specifically I was meaning the laptop segment... these Arrandale CPUs are kind of pathetic. Intel has locked NVidia out of making IGPs for these new chips. If AMD's Fusion is any good, it could take significant laptop marketshare away from Intel. AMD's current Caspian CPUs aren't terrible.
 

ncbill

macrumors 6502
Aug 18, 2002
251
11
256GB SSD would double the price to the OEM.

With 500GB drives @ $70 retail Apple will be using HDD for a while.

You can always drop in your own SATA solution (AFAIK, there's no standard PCI daughtercard interface for SSD)

The Hope here is that Apple could benefit from the fast SSD for boot and app performance while keeping bulk storage relatively cheap. The thought is that 256 GB of SSD would be enough for most user as far as app storage goes. With data on rotating media the SSD should last a very long time due to being primarily a read only drive. That is apps get install and for the most part you don't see much in the way of change happening on the SSD. This might actually simplify the design of the SSD controller, making the storage both cheaper and faster.

Thanks
Dave
 

gianly1985

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2008
798
0

stylewriter

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2004
51
0
Johnson City, TN
The qualification here is that Apple might go with a low speed Arandale if the over all power budget is lower. However it doesn't look like Intel will initially release a the low power models. As to AIR I'd cancel anyways but that is me, I really don't think much of that model. Apple could redeem themselves with an overhauled AIR or they could simply cancel the unit outright.

Dave

I like the Air except that the RAM is limited... If the Air had upgradable RAM I likely would have bought one last time. The other limitations of Air don't effect me.
 

tw3nty

macrumors newbie
Dec 1, 2009
2
0
Just ordered a 13" MBP 2.53ghz w/ 4gb, 250gb for $1300 AR w/ free printer and WMware fusion at Macconnection. Really wondering if I should cancel this order. Been debating because of the new chips in January. Wont really be needing a laptop the whole month of January anyways.

What I am concerned with is, has any of the past updates upped the ram and hd space? Would really like to see a better graphics card, but I any speculation on whether 4gb of ram and 250gb hd will be standard?

I really want to get in on the entry level price point on the MBP just wondering what other people are speculating. Right now at $1300 I get a lot of the extras basically topping out the current MBP 13" for 200 less than retail.
 

jmull

macrumors regular
Sep 16, 2009
190
0
Code:
Base      Turbo
2.40 GHz  2.93 GHz
2.53 GHz  3.07 GHz
2.67 GHz  3.33 GHz

Turbos are up to 20%-25%.


But lets say I have a 3GHz C2D, is it that much better to have a 2.6GHz i5 when the TB is only giving you .3GHz when the other pipe is free (which is prolly never?). I'm only nick-picking because I'm sure they are going to charge a lot for these new machines and I don't see the big improvement like with the iMac's.
 

Maxintech

macrumors regular
Nov 8, 2007
124
0
Buenos Aires, Argentina
the current line up as it is
13" MB - 2.26 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - P8400 -$209
13" MBP - 2.26 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - P8400 - $209
13" MBP - 2.53 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - P8700 - $209

15" MBP - 2.53 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - P8700 - $209
15" MBP - 2.66 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - P8800 - $241

15" MBP - 2.80 Ghz 6M L2 Cache - P9700 - $348
17" MBP - 2.80 Ghz 6M L2 Cache - P9700 - $348

based on the price alone

Assumptions
#1. $16 difference between the old and new line up because of the integrated GPU inside the chip OR U$ value depreciation
#2. these are 35Watts TDP including GPU so they are equal to current PXXXX CPUs with 25 Watts TDP
#3. Prices based on wiki

the newer MB and MBP line would be
13" MB - 2.26 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - i5 430M - $225

13" MBP - 2.26 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - i5 430M - $225
13" MBP - 2.40 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - i5 520M - $225

15" MBP - 2.40 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - i5 520M - $225
15" MBP - 2.53 Ghz 3M L2 Cache - i5 540M - $257

15" MBP - 2.66 Ghz 4M L2 Cache - i5 620M Dual Core - $332 OR 1.60 Ghz 6M L2 Cache - i7 720QM - $364 - Quad Core
17" MBP - 2.66 Ghz 4M L2 Cache - i5 620M Dual Core - $332 OR 1.60 Ghz 6M L2 Cache - i7 720QM - $364 - Quad Core

and no Core i3 in this line up. graphics how that going to play out also no idea.

reference i am using here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ile_Processors
it is not a intel announced price but it should be close enough

i posted this on the other thread...

i7 720QM is Clarksfiled, not Arrandale.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture) for details.

BTW... no quad, no deal for me.
 

wizard

macrumors 68040
May 29, 2003
3,854
571
It is a brand new architecture!!!!!!!!

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.

I'm not sure what you are missing here but these new CPU's should offer a significant improvement in the same way that the architecture did on the iMacs. In any event read up on i5 & i7 and what they bring to the table.

dave
 

iMacmatician

macrumors 601
Jul 20, 2008
4,249
55
But lets say I have a 3GHz C2D, is it that much better to have a 2.6GHz i5 when the TB is only giving you .3GHz when the other pipe is free (which is prolly never?). I'm only nick-picking because I'm sure they are going to charge a lot for these new machines and I don't see the big improvement like with the iMac's.
Arrandale performs better (at least 10% I think) than Penryn at the same clock speed and that's before throwing Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading in.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.