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

First Intel Penryn Chips Due in 2007?

I think we are talking about a LOT more engineering to deal with the extra heat.

Maybe even back to a "brick-on-a-rope" external power supply.

Obviously, Apple's decided one chipset for both mobile and desktop consumer models is their best option.

That decision was probably driven by both the heat issues with desktop CPUs and future support costs involved with multiple chipsets.

You're clearly in the Mac Pro demographic, which offers much better performance, for a significant price premium.

suneohair said:
... but for the same cost and a little more engineering Apple could have some very competitive desktops.
Click to expand...
 
suneohair said:
They are paying close to oem price (retail). Apple doesn't have the volume anywhere near that of Dell and others. Their prices aren't far off from 1000 chip purchases. They aren't getting those chips at 50% if that is what you are implying.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this completely. Dell has about 4 times the volume as Apple over the entire market. However Dell is also shipping probably somewhere close to 12-15 different processor lines. Ranging from Xeon, Conroe, Merom, Yonah, Pentium D's still, Core 2 Quads etc. at every imaginable performance level. Apple on the other hand 80-90% of their business is likely in iMac, MacBook and MacBook Pros. Which all use the same processor line in speeds 1.83, 2, 2.2 and 2.4 Ghz (did I miss any?). Apple easily purchases as many or more of these Merom chips per quarter then Dell does.
 
metallicaisgood said:
...A casual user isn't going to need the extra power anyways. And that's the market the iMac is pretty much aimed at. Casual computer users who don't really care about the best processor/graphics card..
Click to expand...

Actually, if you don't want to pay $3K for a desktop and don't need a laptop, the iMac is pretty much your only option...

...and forget about the mini...
 
Eidorian said:
What about the 8800M? :D
Click to expand...

:eek:
Holy...

Guess they got on the 'shrink the 8800' job quicker than I thought they would.

After seeing your post and googling 8800m...

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=40032

Nvidia prepares 8800 for notebooks

Computex 007 Meet NB8E, new G80 chip in 22W+ envelope

By Theo Valich in Old Taipei: Sunday 03 June 2007, 19:03
WHILE THE ORIGINAL G80 chip was a monster and consumed over 100 watts of power, Nvidia decided to mark this summer with its NB8E chip, a re-spin of the original G80 that will address the enthusiast notebook segment.

In order to fit the power envelope, lots of changes have been made, from the way the chip is manufactured to the functional units themselves. Even though these cuts will decrease 3D performance when compared to the desktop, this will be a most powerful chip for notebook market. Currently in roadmaps we have seen somewhere between Croatia and Taiwan, NB8E should come to market as NB8E-GTX, NB8E-GT and NB8E-SE. These codenames will probably end as GeForce 8800M GTX, 8800M GT and 8800M GS.

For the end, here's a teaser. For dual-PCB 7950GX2, Nvidia used G71M, mobile version of its ultra-successful G71 (7900) chip. Guess what becomes a possibility if the G80 is packed in 22W+? µ
Click to expand...

Ok. So I guess 8800 is feasible in the iMac...but yes, it would be one of the 8800M flavors. :eek:
 
Marx55 said:
What about power consumption?

Could the Penryn be used for the new Mac mini in 2008 or so?

I want the performance of the Mac Pro and I would pay for it, but I use Mac mini because it is extremely quiet. My priorities are:

1. Quiet.
2. Performance.
3. Connectors (idealky eSATA II and FireWire 800).
5. Size.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

What's #4?

Anyway, I bet we're seeing a mini update Tuesday.

Oh, and I don't mind about size or quietness. I like the hum a computer gives off when running, and I should have enough space for anything non-tower and non-CRT.
 
studiopix said:
Apple really needs to address this important desktop class of processors in their lineup. A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro. Something small, thin, competitively priced and with a choice of monitor size. Something that can kick butt in gaming as well as easily handle the daily 2D/3D design work.
Click to expand...

I agree completley. Recenty I needed to buy a new computer for my office at work and I needed something with dual monitors. The only real option was the Mac Pro and i didnt need a $2500 computer. i settled for a $800 Dell that works great, but I would have prefered an Apple that I could Dual Boot
 
I remain a vocal proponent for a true Apple desktop system.
However, adding the mobile nVidia G80 chip as a BTO option for the iMac will certainly be a step in the right direction. Especially as DirectX 10 games start trickling out, the systems with BootCamped Vista will be nice with that G80. (assuming the mobile G80 has enough dedicated RAM)
 
studiopix said:
....A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro.....
Click to expand...

I'm waiting until Leopard comes out then if Apple still does offer to sell a midrange desktop I'm going with Max OS X on generic PC hardware.

Apple used to sell a G4 PowerMac for about $1,500. They need something in that same shape, size and price. It's really odd that they don't because this is the "normal" kind of computer most people buy.

Maybe some one can make some money buy putting together a PC that can run the retail leopard OS.
 
metallicaisgood said:
Lets remember something here, top of the line desktop CPUs and GPUs have a lot of disadvantages for something like the iMac that is so compact.. Desktop parts run a lot hotter, they're a lot louder, they're bigger, and they take more power. Using desktop parts in the iMac is sort of pointless. A casual user isn't going to need the extra power anyways. And that's the market the iMac is pretty much aimed at. Casual computer users who don't really care about the best processor/graphics card..
Click to expand...

But they do care about the price drop. Put in a desktop processor at the same performance of a laptop processor, and the cost of the CPU goes down, what, like $2-300?
 
ChrisA said:
I'm waiting until Leopard comes out then if Apple still does offer to sell a midrange desktop I'm going with Max OS X on generic PC hardware.

Apple used to sell a G4 PowerMac for about $1,500. They need something in that same shape, size and price. It's really odd that they don't because this is the "normal" kind of computer most people buy.

Maybe some one can make some money buy putting together a PC that can run the retail leopard OS.
Click to expand...

I hate it when people say this on apple boards. First, its not legal, so why go on about it. But secondly, and more importantly, OS X is going to work well on generic PCs. The reason you like your Mac experience is because its ease of use and consistency. Neither of these will be existent in an un-supported, highly hacked/patched OS X on a beige box. Just look to how poorly OS X has handled the new Nvidia GPUs that didn't have very good drivers. Now imagine that it is trying to work on all foreign hardware. I don't believe that would offer anything resembling the mac experience. Might as well skin windows xp to look like it if thats what you want.
 
Schtumple said:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Click to expand...

OK, i realize this front has been heavily worked on over the last few years, with the intel transition speeding things along quite a bit. But I still feel like tech geeks willing to hack systems and be a part of a community hacking and writing their own drivers is far cry from what the "we want Apple to license to Dell" camp is clamoring for. And even for those who venture into this, legalities aside, are you going to use these machines for a living? Are you willing to risk business flow on hacked machines?

I'm just afraid that Apple trying to work with diy system builders would corrode the OS... water it down. There is something to be said for controlling the software and the hardware it will run on.

All that to say, I'm not against there being more approved gpu upgrades, or the headless macintosh. In fact, i would have purchased one over my Powermac G5 if one were available 3 years ago. If i weren't in need of a mobile as my next machine, i would be wishing for one now.
 
I really want a Mac Mini tower, something fast but cheap. Then just upgrade the iMac with whatever mobile stuff you want. Not that complicated.

I fear I am just going to have to switch to linux so I can build the machine I want.
 
Even the G0 revision of Q6600 has a tdp of 95w. i cant see apple using it in iMac. They need to intro a special headless mac to use desktop cpus.after all q6600 is only $266 and apple can make a quad core system for under $1000.

Intel is releasing harpertown (45nm server) with 3ghz quad core at 80w. So intel could potentially reduce tdp in desktop quad core to 80w(non extreme edition). Also intel has promised to release a extreme edition quad core mobile sometime in 2008. That should cost at least $851 as x7800.. At that point we should see quad core in iMac/macbook pro.
 
This doesn't really mean anything in terms of Apples plan... unless of corse they plan to use the high end chip in the next Mac Pro (which I highly doubt).
 
AtHomeBoy_2000 said:
I agree completley. Recenty I needed to buy a new computer for my office at work and I needed something with dual monitors. The only real option was the Mac Pro and i didnt need a $2500 computer. i settled for a $800 Dell that works great, but I would have prefered an Apple that I could Dual Boot
Click to expand...

iMac with dual monitors works absolutely fine for me.
 
suneohair said:
TDP is 35w for the t7300 though. Very nice, the e6850 sits at 65w.
Click to expand...

You can't just look at the total wattage. The mobile chips have some power-save modes that save power. (I think they can shut down part of the cache and one CPU core .) Look at the total power used per month rather then the max amount it can draw.

I think the real reason Apple uses the mobile chips is to streamline their product line. The iMac is really just a MBP with a big screen and disk and no battery. This saves them some engineering cost as they get to re-use some of their work. iMac and MBP may not share a PCB layout but they might share common hardware schematic and software drivers. It may also boost the number of the same type chips Apple buys and get them a steeper quantity discount from Apple's suppliers.
 
shawmanus said:
Even the G0 revision of Q6600 has a tdp of 95w. i cant see apple using it in iMac. They need to intro a special headless mac to use desktop cpus.after all q6600 is only $266 and apple can make a quad core system for under $1000.

Intel is releasing harpertown (45nm server) with 3ghz quad core at 80w. So intel could potentially reduce tdp in desktop quad core to 80w(non extreme edition). Also intel has promised to release a extreme edition quad core mobile sometime in 2008. That should cost at least $851 as x7800.. At that point we should see quad core in iMac/macbook pro.
Click to expand...

There is no need for 4 x 3.0GHz. If you use 4 x 2.0GHz or maybe a bit more, then power consumption goes down dramatically (power is proportional to frequency squared, so less than half the power), price goes down as well. To keep power consumption and heat down, Apple could use a slightly faster chip, run at say 2.66GHz if only two cores are active, and slow down to 2.00 GHz with four cores. Good speed for software that is not multi-core optimised, better speed for multi-core optimised software, and heat + fan noise would still be low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back